The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112391.tiff North N oRrH I-25 EIS .....±. .... - 25 information . cooperation. transportation . 1 F . EpviroPmgrita ifiii8Ct Sidi0111011i _ . • . . . . .. • • Ill P.ell Me lit 11 + 352—P . ~-' lip �•. •- _ .,d = a ••+¢fr _wiira •• s {: .Mw.,,, d s . 1 _ '.iy_tom: t./ p 1, iinika• ./� ' J .06 _ 1 ii ii * N.1 t. _ee al) e ' . .,. 4 . • • , , • • • • : Apr •••-". V rct ....: Ar/MINIMM: . .A 1 VS •r+ 'S. i' r![1i iZ''^"G ♦ r i �vc��:• \ I �C1Set APp� ,Its-,0"r":104%-..K .•'t y ` At '1 � 1 ;`_ • • lit V 0 LU M E 1 of 2011 -2390 00 2011 -2391 U.S Departmcrtrof 1rort;poaa•:en 2011 -2392 Federal Highway 2011 IAugust I 2011 -2393 • N oRni 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.7 Water Resources • • c20/1-02391 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.7 WATER RESOURCES This section discusses water resources in the North 1-25 regional study area. What's in Section 3.7? Numerous streams, tributaries, canals, 3.7 Water Resources ditches, reservoirs, and lakes in the 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations regional study area watersheds are either 3.7.1.1 Surface Water Classifications adjacent to or cross 1-25 and the other 3.7.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act major corridors (US 85, Union Pacific 3.7.1.3 Senate Bill 40 Railroad (UPRR), and Burlington Northern 3.7.2 Affected Environment Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) in the project 3.7.2.1 Surface Water area. 3.7.2.2 Watersheds 3.7.2.3 Groundwater 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences Surface waters contribute to the quality of 3.7.3.1 Water Quality Impact Methodology life for residents within the regional study 3.7.3.2 No-Action Alternative area because they provide water supply, 3.7.3.3 Package A recreation opportunities, and aesthetic 3.7.3.4 Package B value. The aquatic and riparian habitats 3.7.3.5 Preferred Alternative that the surface waters provide are vital for 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures 3.7.4.1 Surface Water Quality a wide variety of species within the project 3.7.4.2 Groundwater Quality area. Increased urbanization and mixed 3.7.4.3 Drainage land use practices within the regional study area and project area are progressively • contributing to degraded water quality. Accordingly, protecting the integrity of water resources within the project area is a critical piece of this project, which is legally mandated by federal, state, and local regulations. This section provides an overview of the existing conditions of surface water in the project area and assesses impacts that the build packages (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) and the No-Action Alternative would have on water quality due to project activities. Impacts to groundwater wells are also addressed in this section. Permanent best management practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into the roadway and rail design for both packages to ensure MS4 compliance and reduce the majority of impacts from stormwater. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve when compared to the existing conditions in areas where no water quality treatment is currently provided. 3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations Water resources within the regional study area are managed through federal, state, and local regulations that establish the standards and management actions necessary to protect their physical, chemical, and biological integrity. The primary regulations governing surface water and groundwater resources in the project area are the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has the authority to establish and enforce water quality standards within the state. The primary water quality concern associated with the project results from the discharge of • stormwater to receiving waters (see Section 3.7.3). As part of the CWA, entities with stormwater discharges are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Water Resources 3.7-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) that are owned and maintained by municipalities and CDOT are required to obtain Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) permits for stormwater discharges. The permit requires the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)to develop and implement a stormwater management program to maintain and protect water quality conditions from their stormwater discharges. A major program element is the development and implementation of BMPs, which are defined as activities, procedures, and other practices that prevent or reduce water pollution. As part of the MS4 program, CDOT is required to design, construct, and maintain permanent BMPs to protect aquatic resources. As part of the stormwater management program, CDOT also is required to develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff for any construction activity that would result in a land disturbance greater than or equal to one acre. While the entire project must comply with CDPHE-WQCC rules and regulations (including construction requirements), the MS4 permit requirements are only applicable in designated MS4 areas. Because of the size of this project, the build packages cross 11 MS4 areas (including municipalities and portions of counties). The CDOT MS4 requirements described above are generally only applicable in these MS4 areas. Besides compliance with the CDOT MS4 program, all local MS4 construction and new development requirements must also be met within the local MS4 jurisdictional boundaries. An analysis was conducted using the 2000 census data to define the permit coverage for portions of Adams, Larimer, and Boulder counties based on population density. Because the regional study area is rapidly growing, the projected 2035 population used in the traffic model was utilized to predict what areas might be within an MS4 area in 2035. The project should also comply with additional requirements of • local municipal MS4 programs. The final coordination of these permit issues is typically completed during the design phase of the project. The CDOT MS4 requirements and specifications comply with the FHWA regulation "Erosion and Sediment Control on Highway Construction Projects". More detailed information on CDOT MS4 permit requirements are provided in the Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report(FHU, 2008c) and Addendum (FHU, 2010b). 3.7.1.1 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS Two main regulations have been established by the CDPHE-WQCC that classify the designated uses and water quality standards that apply to the surface water bodies within the project area. ► Regulation 31 - Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water ► Regulation 38 - Classification and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin; Laramie River Basin; Republican River Basin; Smoky Hill River Basin Colorado has four designated uses for surface water bodies: agriculture, water supply, recreation, and aquatic life. These designated uses have their own unique water quality standards that are either numeric (quantitative thresholds) or narrative (visual/aesthetic). Surface water classifications do not apply to water that is conveyed in man-made structures such as ditches. Streams that do not meet established water quality standards ("impaired streams") are placed on the Colorado 303(d) List and are required to go through a process to help improve water quality. The process results in the development of a Total Maximum Daily • Load (TMDL), which is a total amount of pollutant loading that a surface water system can Water Resources 3.7-2 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. Cooperation. transportation. assimilate without exceeding water quality standards. Surface waters that require additional monitoring and evaluation to determine if water quality standards are being met are placed on the Colorado 303(d) Monitoring and Evaluation List. The watersheds within the project area contain numerous canals and ditches that transport water for irrigation and domestic drinking water supply. However, canals and ditches do not have designated uses as do natural watercourses. According to State of Colorado code (C.R.S. § 25-8-203(2)(f)), "Waters in ditches and other man-made conveyance structures shall not be classified with designated uses, and water quality standards shall not be applied to them but may be utilized for purposes of discharge permits" [CDPHE-WQCD, 2003]). The designated uses for the surface water bodies within the project area and impaired segments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Impaired stream segments are included in Figure 3.7-3. Stream segments on the Monitoring and Evaluation List for potential highway-related constituents are included in Table 3.7-1 and Figure 3.7-3. The TMDL status for impaired streams is included in the Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report(FHU, 2008c) and Addendum (FHU, 2011b). 3.7.1.2 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT Public drinking water supplies (systems serving more than 25 people) from both groundwater and surface water sources are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These sources include lakes, rivers, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater. Under the SDWA, • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Congress established national health-based standards for drinking water contaminants specified as having known adverse human health effects. As with the CWA, EPA has delegated regulatory authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act to the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). Section 3.7.3 includes information about public water supply wells in the project area. 3.7.1.3 SENATE BILL 40 Colorado Senate Bill 40 (SB40) requires that projects that affect waters of the state and their associated riparian areas comply with its provisions. These provisions are aimed at preserving wildlife habitat in streams for fish and aquatic species and terrestrial species that rely upon riparian areas. Compliance with SB40 provisions is documented in a certification obtained through the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CD0W). Section 3.7.4 includes information about SB40 guidelines that will be followed in the project area. 3.7.2 Affected Environment 3.7.2.1 SURFACE WATER The regional study area lies in the transition zone between the Rocky Mountain Front Range in central Colorado and the Great Plains of eastern Colorado and is situated entirely in the South Platte River basin (see Figure 3.7-1). The South Platte River basin, which is one of eight major river basins in Colorado, occupies approximately 13 million acres in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. • Water Resources 3.7-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation0 Figure 3.7-1 South Platte River Basin i s. . 7.,„-re.....art .Y Wiles Wit ' LAS I 1 MUM Y"' HNorth 1-25 Regional Study Area}-- White-Yampa Cry r J - - - - -River Basin-1 - -- _ South Platte +n ItAp River Basin ' nlu i '; 4L__ a Republican � �� ` River Basin anisColorado Headwatersu� �.a. _ �" �°` River Basin- IMMO _ 1 -/ MUM WWII MS ail -- .u. it ell ICU _ ao, 4 s - L 4 I 2 RPM Ca - Upper Arkansas I Gunnison - - inn River Basin ^�^ -- --- River Basin WIN I SAT ,---._—- __ stew YYYO! al"' t `.•�. Si a1Y. - tall - - MOO I N1--- --` na Mall" - - Rio Grande Headwaters , - - - River Basin a n u wn i J f� r Upper San Juan 'C Y4 II r` River Basin Yr. a` r Six main watersheds occur in the regional study area: the South Platte River, Clear Creek, Big Dry Creek, St. Vrain Creek/Boulder Creek, Big Thompson River, and Cache la Poudre River. Numerous streams, tributaries, canals, ditches, reservoirs, and lakes in these watersheds are either adjacent to or cross 1-25 and the other major corridors (US 85, UPRR, and BNSF Railway) in the project area (see Figure 3.7-2). Hydrology and stream flow regime characteristics of the six watersheds in the regional study area are very similar. The majority of stream flow originates as snowmelt, creating high-flow conditions from May to July, with peak flows in June, and lower flows from October to March . Natural hydrologic conditions in the basin's watersheds have been altered because of extensive in-basin and trans-basin water diversions, reservoir construction, and discharges from publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) (USGS, 1998). Numerous man-made surface water drainage features are also present within the project area and include culverts, inlets, and open channels. Most of the existing drainage structures in the project area were built during the 1960s. At that time, the adjacent areas were rural , and flood damage was limited to agricultural land . The sizes of many of these drainage structures were based on limited rainfall data for what was estimated to be a 25- or 50-year storm event. The 100-year storm is now used for drainage design in urbanized areas and for floodplains under the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA). Many of the existing drainage structures constrict stormwater flows, cause flooding , and overtopping of the adjacentII highways. In order to conform to newer criteria and control flooding , most drainage structures in the project area will be replaced with larger structures. Water Resources 3.7-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.7-2 Watersheds in the Regional Study Area LEGEND L 1.J-1 Regional Study Area I 0 Cities & Towns in Regional Study Area ‘-. - / Study Corridors et'.rffl riatae '--.,, V, Highways \v wiy \„.N.--.-1 -‘. Arterial Roads f '; 411 City Boundaries < - / CACHE LA POUDRE ha i WATERSHED i •Co 1 llins i a , _ -- 4 I •' A,JI t I 27 ' I i ii (? 73 Lucarne 392 i Cache la poudre River-_Y_ • Gri rley�1\e' 34 •''. E • 263 T ¢sder City - Lovelanr-I _ � Ex I i .rn—_ BIG TIOMPSON J - Eva n•:- e i WATERSH4 D ,,,nap ; . . khnsti •nrBju �r / 60 Eli I L B st wud 0 'vi :KES1 / 6i ' / 0 i I SOUTH PLANT i IWATERSHED ! I 1 meg ://iw I 66 m ' Longmont I I • ' lures , ST. VRAIN V a • 1 WATERSHED a i IWO: (•re m ,: , o Ivrf,iic: t r �,! _. v I,Jc;1' ,BIG r,, ,,,:�:,�, ' Tr r i k w Cilinbarre! �,;e. - DRY CREEK 1 ...., .i f . 1 i i WATERSNEUo� �1-� 7 - . , i1 L)UI1l(ICf �," I 0 1.J l te. NW I - T 1 I T_kt. 93 Z 0`0 Ij. 1 BlorrhglFr,n / rs� 36 ' 'i n>�nt1 I ;/ / CLEAR,CREEK L_. WATERSHE k. t� . e ,i ttear .. _ / i J r, 70 1 / 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 A� ' ! ' ' ' ' I Miles North '•-----',0 , / I .\\,. Water Resources 3.7-5 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.7.2.2 WATERSHEDS This section describes the surface water designated uses and water quality impairments within the project area. Stream segments on CDPHE's Monitoring and Evaluation List for potential highway-related constituents are also included in this section. Water bodies that cross or are present within 100 feet of the existing 1-25 or US 85 edges-of-pavement or the edge of the rail lines were considered to be within the project area. However, in certain cases, water bodies outside the project area were also included if they are: 1) downstream from the project area, 2) designated water supplies, or 3) impaired and close to the project area. Existing contaminant loading from the current highway configuration for each watershed was estimated using an FHWA water quality model (Driscoll Model). This model is discussed later in this section. Five contaminants were modeled for the project area (chloride, copper, phosphorus, total suspended solids (TSS), and zinc) because of their water quality implications in the project area. They are assumed to be an indicator of overall contamination in runoff. South Plaffe River Watershed The South Platte River watershed occupies 45,560 acres in the southern portion of the regional study area (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 110 acres of impervious surface within the project area (USGS, 2000). The E-470 to US 36 component crosses this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any • impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. The main stem (Segments 15, la, and 1b) is also included because it has water supply designations and all streams within the project area eventually discharge into the South Platte River. It is important to consider downstream segments to ensure that upstream project activities do not adversely affect those receiving water bodies. Segment 15 is the only segment with water quality impairments. This portion of the main stem has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for an E. coli impairment (see Figure 3.7-3) (CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). E. coil is not generally associated with roadway runoff. • Water Resources 3.7-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.7-1 Surface Water Segments,Designated Uses, and Impairments within the Project Area I Designated Uses I Impairments South Platte River Watershed Segment 15 Recreation E, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, agriculture, and water E. col! su Segment 16c Recreation E, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, and agriculture N/A Segment 1 a pRecreation E, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, agriculture, and water N/A suply Segment 1 b Recreation E, Class 2 warm water aquatic life, agriculture, and water NIA supply Clear Creek Watershed Class 1 warm water aquatic life, recreation E,agriculture,and water E. coil, aquatic life Segment 15 supply use, and organic sediment Big Dry Creek Watershed E. coil and Segment 1 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation P,and agriculture Selenium; Total Recoverable Iron (M&E List) St.Vrain/Boulder Creek Watershed Segment 3 Class 1 warm water aquatic life, recreation E, and agriculture E. co/i, aquatic life • use Segment 6 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation E, and agriculture E. col/(Dry Creek Only), Selenium Segment 10 Class 1 warm water aquatic life, recreation E, agriculture, and water E. Co/i supply. Big Thompson River Watershed Segment 4b Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation E (from 5/1 to 10/15 N/A annually), and recreation 2 (10/16 to 4/30, annually) Segment 4c Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation E(from 5/1 to 10/15 N/A annually), and recreation 2(10/16 to 4/30, annually) Segment 5 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation P(from 5/1 to 10/15, Selenium annually), recreation N (10/16 to 4/30, annually), and agriculture Segment 6 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation E, and agriculture N/A Selenium, Segment 9 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation N,and agriculture E. coli, Copper, Aquatic life Segment 10 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation N,and agriculture Selenium _ (Big Hollow) Cache la Poudre River Watershed Segment 11 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation E,and agricultural uses N/A E.coil Segment 12 Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation E,and agricultural uses (below Eaton Draw), Selenium Segment 13a Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation E,and agricultural uses Selenium, E. col/ • Segment 13b Class 2 warm water aquatic life, recreation P (5/15 to 9/15, Selenium annually), recreation N (9/16 to 5/14, annually), and agricultural uses Source:CDPHE, 2007 original Water Resources 3.7-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. lill Figure 3.7-3 Impaired Streams in the Regional Study Area LEGEND • Seg. 13b-Boxelder Creek from - 303(d) Impaired Streams source to the Cache la Poudre River O Cities & Towns in Regional Study Area �we� m _ . Impairment - Selenium i ^�� g 't, ? Regional Study Area r \' \ 00V Study Corridors 287 �/ I. .,.r \•.\ / Highways // /N /\/ Arterial Roads j fort Collins \ T Sill City Boundaries I _ - \ 14 . 'I ‘ 257_ , i i rr „r Seg. 12 - Cache la Poudre River, . -:.1•F]•iinci,i.Box Elder Creek to S. Platte f Impairment - Selenium, E. Coll 1 7 v;�t; , Seg. 13a - Fossil Creek Tributary 1 392 to the Cache la Poudre I '"`k'' Impairment - Selenium, E. Coli I l 1 Greeley` 34 ' - ILoveland Seg. 12 -Cache la Poudre I - 34 River, Below Eaton Draw to Seg. 5 - Big Thompson River, I S. Platte - Impairment - E. Coll -- I-25 to the S. Platte River .h = Impairment - Selenium IA l Cert,u,a, ,,- — i a 60 L; f3errho.,r. ' 0 Milliken Mt /• Seg. 10 - Big Hollow Tributary 6 % To the Little Thompson River I '-=-. f Impairment - Selenium - - lira/ i ' Seg. 9 -Little Thompson River, 0 • Culver Ditch to Big Thompson River Ammar. -- ./ Big l 1 % Impairment - E. toll, Selenium,_....\>): 1 4 l' °''�i�i Copper, Aquatic Life Use 66 ; Seg. 6 - Dry CreekTributary l I' I onyn ni I Seg. 6 -Tributaries to St. Vrain To StVrain Creekll, Impairment -E. coil, Selenium 3 I Creek - Impairment - Selenium . v I Seg. 10 - Boulder Creek, Coal (4. ca j Seg. 1 -Mainstem of Big Dry Creek, Creek to St. Vrain Creek including all tributaries. lakes, Impairment - E. toll 10 F r-'- 1 reservoirs and wetlands, from the, - f ' source to the confluence with the 1 ,` = - D pa.,, I` . Luc, South Platte River el : ,rtnirel ' Impairment - E. cola, Selenium \\," " '9 ' v I / El F , 76 , v , I Bo Idcr / I` N d') �� a i .mite ,Haji rte' ' El'ightm E-47, /.., -4., _rRain -fa r /' \ . • \ a r.r-7t4t- . • �/ ' Seg. 1 -Big Dry Creek 93 \''\ N7 7'u INui Below York St. — 36 287 - - Impairment - Iron • O 'inur / \ _ Seg. 15 -Clear Creek, Youngfleld St. to South Platte River 72 i A l Seg. 15 - South Platte River. Impairment - E. coil, Aquatic - r �� / Burlington Ditch to Big Dry Creek ' Life Use, Organic Sediment_ • -- --- -- -.\� '7' Impairment - E. toll it /Denver 70 --p--ss\0 2 4 6 8 10 I i� Prig : we • i • ' ' ' ' 1 Miles North t'•-- / s / K • • Water Resources 3.7-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation. transportation. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event from the existing 1-25 conditions in the South Platte River watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Table 3.7-2 Mean Contaminant Loading Per Storm Event From The Driscoll Model (Pounds per Event) in the South Platte River Watershed Chloride Copper Phosphorus Total Suspended Zinc Watershed Solids(TSS) (pounds/event) (pounds/event) (pounds/event) (pounds/event) (pounds/event) South Platte 78.4 0.058 3.7 2,600 0.52 River Clear Creek 14.5 0.011 0.68 481 0.097 Big Dry 125 0.093 5.8 4,150 0.83 Creek St. Vrain 265 0.20 12.4 8,800 1.8 Creek Big Thompson 181 0.13 8.4 6,000 1.2 River Cache la 266 0.20 12.4 8,800 1.8 Poudre River • Clear Creek Watershed The Clear Creek watershed occupies 14,787 acres in the southern portion of the regional study area (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 20 acres of impervious surface within the project area (USGS, 2000). The E-470 to US 36 (H4) component crosses this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Clear Creek Segment 15 is located downstream of the project area and has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. coli, aquatic life use, and organic sediment (CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). Constituents causing the stream impairments near the project area are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the Clear Creek watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Big Dry Creek Watershed The Big Dry Creek watershed occupies 65,055 acres in the southern portion of the regional study area. The watershed lies south of the St. Vrain Creek watershed and north of the South Platte River watershed (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for 171 acres of impervious surface area within the project area (USGS, 2000). The E-470 to US 36 component and the SH 60 to E-470 component cross this watershed. • Water Resources 3.7.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Big Dry Creek (Segment 1) is within the project area and has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. coli and selenium (CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). E. coli and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. A portion of Segment 1, located approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the project area, has also been placed on the 2006 Monitoring and Evaluation List for total recoverable iron (CDPHE-WQCD, 2006b). Iron is a constituent that can be associated with roadway runoff due to auto body rust, steel highway structures, and vehicle engine parts. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the Big Dry Creek watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. St Vrain Creek Watershed The St. Vrain Creek watershed occupies 204,664 acres in the middle portion of the regional study area. The watershed lies north of the Big Dry Creek watershed and south of the Big Thompson River watershed (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for 350 acres of impervious surface area within the project area (USGS, 2000). The SH 60 to E-470 component crosses this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Segment 3 has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. coli(CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). Segment 6 has been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for • selenium and E. coli(CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). Boulder Creek (Segment 10) is also included because it is located close to the project area, has a designated water supply designation, and has an impairment for E. coli(CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). E. coli and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the St. Vrain Creek watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Big Thompson River Watershed The Big Thompson watershed occupies 122,523 acres in the northern portion of the regional study area (see Figure 3.7-2). The watershed is located north of the St. Vrain Creek watershed and south of the Cache la Poudre River watershed. Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 223 acres of impervious surfaces within the project area (USGS, 2000). The SH 14 to SH 60 component and SH 60 to E-470 component cross this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Segments 5, 9, and 10 have been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for selenium (all segments), ammonia (Segment 5), and E. coli(Segment 9) (CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). Ammonia, E. coli, and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the • existing 1-25 conditions in the Big Thompson River watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. Water Resources 3.7-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation. transportation. Cache la Poudre River Watershed The Cache la Poudre River watershed occupies 264,736 acres in the northern portion of the project area. The watershed lies north of Big Thompson River watershed (see Figure 3.7-2). Overall, within this watershed, 1-25 accounts for approximately 337 acres of impervious surfaces within the project area (USGS, 2000). The SH 1 to SH 14 component and SH 14 to SH 60 component cross this watershed. The stream segments within the project area, their designated stream uses, and any impairments are listed in Table 3.7-1. Segments 12, 13a, and 13b have been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for selenium. Segment 12 has also been placed on the 2006 303(d) List for E. coli(CDPHE-WQCD, 2006a). E. coli and selenium are generally not associated with roadway runoff. Table 3.7-2 presents the estimated existing contaminant loading from a storm event for the existing 1-25 conditions in the Cache la Poudre River watershed. These values are compared to the estimated loading for each alternative in the following section. 3.7.2.3 GROUNDWATER Numerous groundwater wells are located within the regional study area. The regional study area is situated above the consolidated bedrock aquifers of the Denver basin and Dakota- Cheyenne group (aka South Platte Formation) and the unconsolidated shallow alluvial aquifers associated with the South Platte River and its tributaries (Colorado Geological Survey, 2003). • Groundwater from the aquifers can be brought to the surface with wells and provide water supply for multiple uses. The Denver basin aquifers primarily supply domestic and municipal water. The Dakota-Cheyenne group primarily supplies domestic, livestock, and industrial water. The South Platte Valley-Fill alluvial aquifer primarily supplies irrigation and municipal water. 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the potential consequences of the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative with regard to water quality and stormwater drainage for the six watersheds within the project area. Permanent BMPs, consisting of water quality ponds, have been incorporated into the roadway and rail design for both packages to ensure MS4 compliance. During final design, BMPs other than water quality ponds may be used. It is anticipated that any alternate BMPs will be able to be incorporated within the right-of-way identified in this EIS for water quality ponds. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve when compared to the existing conditions in areas where no water quality treatment is currently provided. 3.7.3.1 WATER QUALITY IMPACTS METHODOLOGY Surface Water If stormwater is left untreated, water quality impacts are generally correlated with the addition of paved impervious surfaces that alter the volume, velocity, and quality of stormwater runoff discharged into nearby surface water bodies. The impacts common to all alternatives that • affect water quality in the absence of BMPs are listed in Table 3.7-3. Water Resources 3.7-11 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.7-3 Common Highway-Related Surface Water Quality Impacts Direct Impacts Typical Mitigation' Sediment Harmful to aquatic life. Sedimentation directly degrades ► Water Quality Ponds' aquatic habitat. Suspended sediment increases turbidity and ► Channel Stabilization reduces aquatic plant life productivity. Suspended sediment ► Nonstructural BMPs can be fatal to aquatic species by reducing dissolved oxygen (continued decreasing levels(Trombulak and Frissell, 2000). use of salt and sanding) Anti-Icing/De- Potentially harmful to aquatic species, including plants. ► Nonstructural BMPs Icing CDOT is conducting research to better understand the (continued decreasing Chemicals aquatic life effects. use of salt and sanding) (Salt-Based Deicers) Petroleum Toxic to aquatic life. Typically accumulates on the water ► Water Quality Ponds2 surface and can inhibit plant and animal productivity. Direct ► Nonstructural BMPs mortality. The severity of the petroleum effects is related to (Spill Prevention Plans & the habitat into which it is introduced. River habitats may be Emergency Notification less severely affected by spills than standing water. Procedures) Metals Toxic to aquatic life. Bio-accumulation. Metals that bind to ► Water Quality Ponds' suspended solids and decaying organic matter can persist in ► Well Abandonment the environment for long periods of time. Contamination of ► Nonstructural BMPs drinking water supplies. (Spill prevention plan during construction) Nutrients Toxic to aquatic life. Excessive nutrients, primarily nitrogen ► Water Quality Ponds' and phosphorus, can cause extreme algal growth, which is toxic to certain aquatic organisms. Algal blooms and die-off causes large swings in dissolved oxygen levels and in • extreme cases fish kills.Alters aesthetics. Can cause designated use impairments. General Erosion. Harmful to aquatic life.Vegetation removal at ► Construction BMPsa Construction construction sites increases stormwater runoff velocity and • Minimize in-stream Activities volume causing accelerated erosion. Riparian vegetation activities removal reduces stream bank stability, accelerates erosion, • Stormwater alters aquatic habitat and shading, and causes in-stream Management Plan temperature changes. Construction vehicles deposit (silt fence, inlet sediment onto surrounding roads, which is later mobilized protection, during storm events. containerization of wastes, etc.) • Revegetation and replacement of site, including riparian areas • Spill Prevention Plan • Construction Phasing Construction of Erosion. Harmful to aquatic life. Alters streamflow within ► Channel Stabilization new piers, channel. Erosion/sedimentation upstream and downstream of ► Construction Phasing culverts, etc. structures. Reduces quality and quantity of aquatic habitat. Increased Erosion. Harmful to aquatic life. Increased stormwater ► Water Quality Ponds' Stormwater runoff velocity and volume causes stream channelization ► Channel Stabilization Velocity& (i.e., straightening). Channelization increases surface water Volume velocity and exacerbates erosion and sedimentation. Reduces quality and quantity of aquatic habitat. Notes: 1 See Section 3.7.4.1 for a description of proposed mitigation measures. • 2 The generic term Water Quality Ponds refers to ponds that accommodate water quality capture volume, detention ponds, or retention ponds.The exact BMP will be determined during final design. a Activities CDOT currently undertake at construction sites and are required by permit. Water Resources 3.7-12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. If stormwater is left untreated, the project alternatives would cause indirect impacts later in time or at some distance downstream of the project area. These indirect impacts include alterations to natural channel movement processes (i.e. meandering, channel incision) and the continual degradation of aquatic habitat. For each build alternative and the No-Action Alternative, surface water quality impacts were determined by evaluating the total impervious surface area, estimating the total areas of roadway that will be treated by BMPs, by comparing projected traffic volumes, and applying the Driscoll model. Impervious Surfaces. The total impervious surface area of each alternative was evaluated as a way to estimate water quality impacts in the absence of BMPs. In addition, the impervious surface area treated by BMPs was also used to estimate overall water quality impacts from each build alternative and the No-Action alternative. Generally, if roadway runoff is passed through a BMP, the post-BMP runoff will have better quality than untreated runoff. This was quantified by comparing the impervious surface area associated with an alternative to the percent of that area being treated, or passed through, a BMP. Therefore, an alternative with a higher percentage of treatment will have a lesser impact to the water quality in the project area when compared to levels of existing BMP treatment (see Table 3.7-4). Areas of proposed water quality treatment were estimated based on current and future MS4 areas, the presence of sensitive waters, and the available area for BMPs within the right-of-way. Table 3.7-4 Summary of Total and Treated Impervious Areas • Alternative Total Impervious Area Area Treated %of Area Treated' (acres) (acres) (acres) Existing 1,212 29 2.4% No-Action 1,257 141 11.2% Package A 1,946 1,765 90.7% Package B 2,001 2,509 125% Preferred Alternative 1,982 2,009 101% Notes: 'The percent of area treated through BMPs can be greater than 100 percent because the size of the ponds and/or depth of ponds are bigger/deeper to account for unknown constraints that may be identified in final engineering. Driscoll Model. The Driscoll Model (FHWA, 1990), an FHWA-developed method, was applied as part of the impacts evaluation for the highway components. The modeling approach described herein is consistent with FHWA guidance and is used as a screening tool to compare predicted pollutant mass loading for existing conditions and predicted mass loadings from project alternatives (No-Action, Package A, Package B, and Preferred Alternative) before the application of BMPs. The constituents analyzed in the Driscoll Model were selected based upon their relation to roadway runoff and/or their sensitivity in the regional study area. Stormwater runoff concentration data for the constituents analyzed using the Driscoll Model were obtained from the 1-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (1-70 PEIS) (CDOT, 2004c) because stormwater runoff data is not available for the project area. Petroleum data was not available from the 1-70 PEIS. The results of the Driscoll Model are presented in Table 3.7-5 by watershed. Figure 3.7-4 • graphically presents the Driscoll Model results by watershed. Figure 3.7-4 presents predicted dissolved copper loading by watershed, because copper is a common roadway heavy metal pollutant. Water Resources 3.7-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Table 3.7-5 Driscoll Model Results by Watershed Watershed Contaminant Alternative Cache La Big St. Dry South Clear Total Poudre Thompson Vrain Creek Platte Creek Loading Existing 266 181 265 125 78.4 14.5 930 No-Action 266 184 287 140 78.4 14.5 970 Chloride Package A 400 272 323 229 81.1 14.5 1,320 (lbs/event) Package B 445 366 343 180 90.3 14.8 1,440 Preferred 430 329 320 175 96.5 17.6 1,370 Alternative Existing 0.20 0.13 0.20 0.09 0.06 0.011 0.69 No-Action 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.10 0.06 0.010 0.72 Copper Package A 0.30 0.20 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.011 0.98 (lbs/event) Package B 0.33 0.27 0.25 0.13 0.07 0.011 1.06 Preferred 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.07 0.013 1.01 Alternative Existing 12.4 8.4 12.4 5.8 3.7 0.7 43.4 No-Action 12.4 8.6 13.4 6.5 3.7 0.7 45.3 . Phosphorus Package A 18.7 12.7 15.1 10.7 3.8 0.7 61.7 (lbs/event) - _ Package B 20.8 17.1 16.0 8.4 4.2 0.7 67.2 Preferred 19.9 15.2 14.8 8.1 4.5 0.8 63.4 Alternative Existing 8,820 6,010 8,800 4,150 2,600 481 30,900 No-Action 8,814 6,090 9,530 4,660 2,600 481 32,200 TSS Package A 13,300 9,040 10,700 7,610 2,690 481 43,800 (lbs/event) Package B 14,800 12,100 11,400 5,960 3,000 492 47,800 Preferred 14,300 10,900 10,600 5,800 3,200 583 45,400 Alternative Existing 1.77 1.21 1.77 0.83 0.52 0.10 6.20 No-Action 1.77 1.22 1.92 0.94 0.52 0.10 6.48 Zinc Package A 2.66 1.82 2.15 1.53 0.54 0.10 8.78 (lbs/event) Package B 2.97 2.44 2.28 1.20 0.60 0.10 9.59 Preferred 2.86 2.19 2.13 1.17 0.64 0.12 9.11 Alternative Notes: 1. Results presented in this table indicate modeled total pounds of contaminant discharged per component per event. 2.Total loading values have been rounded to three significant figures. III Water Resources 3.7-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.7-4 Driscoll Model Results by Watershed for Dissolved Copper 0.35 ❑ Existing 0.30 ■ No-Action ❑ Package A 0.25 - ❑ Package B ■ Preferred Alternative 0.20 --_ — -- co co o J y 0.15 - _- a O 0.10 0.05 0.00 — I I ■ Cache La Poudre Big Thompson St. Vrain Dry Creek South Clear Platte Creek Watershed • Constituent loading is measured in pounds of constituent leaving the roadway per a median rainfall event. The relationship between the alternative's loading is the same for every constituent analyzed in the Driscoll Model, only the magnitude of the loading changes. The loads for the existing conditions are used as a "baseline" comparison for each build package. The No-Action Alternative has the lowest predicted constituent loading of all of the project alternatives. Since the Driscoll Model is a screening tool that differentiates impacts among alternatives, the results should not be used to determine if water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The loading information from the Driscoll Model is used to comparatively estimate which alternative may have more water quality impacts. It can be assumed that an alternative with a higher predicted load (i .e. , a greater quantity of constituent leaving the road ) would have more water quality impacts than another alternative. Alternative-specific discussion of the Driscoll Model results are presented in the following sections. Traffic. Water quality impacts were also assessed by comparing the projected annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes. Several research studies have suggested that a correlation exists between stormwater runoff quality and annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes ( FHWA, 1990; Kayhanian and others, 2003). In general, urban areas with greater than 30, 000 AADT have been shown to have higher pollutant concentrations of certain constituents when compared with non-urban areas with AADT less than 30,000. However, the correlation between AADT and pollutant concentrations is not consistent for all pollutants found in highway runoff. Pollutants related to transportation activities, such as zinc and copper, are expected to increase with AADT, while certain pollutants, such as total suspended solids, total • dissolved solids, and ammonia, which are commonly found in highway runoff but generally associated with a non urban setting are not expected to increase with AADT ( FHWA, 1990; Water Resources 3.7-15 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Kayhanian and others, 2003). Therefore, if left unmitigated, it can be assumed that an alternative with an AADT greater than 30,000 would have higher concentrations of certain constituents in runoff than an alternative with an AADT less than 30,000. Table 3.7-6 presents the projected traffic volumes for the alternative components on I-25. The majority of the existing traffic volumes and all of the proposed traffic volumes are greater than 30,000 AADT. However, traffic volumes can still be used to compare alternatives from a water quality perspective. For example, an alternative with a higher traffic volume would be expected to have a higher amount of pollutants from vehicles being washed from the roadway; however the magnitude of difference is not enough to provide a noticeable difference in the negative effect to water quality. In general, the projected traffic volumes are relatively similar between the project alternatives and range from nearly two to three times the existing traffic volumes. The greatest travel demand is generated in the southern portion of the project area between E-470 to US 36 followed by SH 60 to E-470, SH 14 to SH 60, and SH 1 to SH 14. Table 3.7-6 Projected Traffic Volumes (AADT) from the North I-25 Project Alternatives Package SH 1 to SH 14 SH 14 to SH 60 SH 60 to E-470 E-470 to 84th Ave Existing 19,100-40,800 40,800-65,100 65,000-96,700 87,200- 180,700 No-Action 31,600-72,300 72,300- 127,400 116,800- 188,000 167,500-246,400 Package A 37,600-93,000 93,000- 160,600 128,000-202,900 171,400-248,200 • Package B 37,600-92,000 92,000- 149,100 115,000-200,300 183,700-253,500 Preferred 37,600-97,600 97,600- 168,000 130,300- 196,900 183,700-253,500 Alternative Construction and Drainage. Water quality impacts from construction activities are discussed qualitatively based upon the current state of practice for construction within CDOT. Impacts to the drainage system are briefly discussed in this section; however, the detailed analysis of the drainage system is presented in the Section 3.9 Floodplains. Groundwater Groundwater quality impacts were evaluated by estimating the number of groundwater wells within the proposed right-of-way (see Table 3.7-7). This was evaluated because active groundwater wells would need to be relocated, and existing wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. For wells located within the proposed right-of-way, the status and exact location of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify the necessary course of action. For example, active wells would require relocation, while inactive wells can be abandoned. • Water Resources 3.7-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.7-7 Summary of Groundwater Wells within the Project Area Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Potentially Impacted Groundwater Wells' 105 111 112 Note: ' Includes all transit stations and associated parking lots and CDOT maintenance facilities and associated parking lots. 3.7.3.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes safety and maintenance improvements that would need to be constructed if the build packages were not implemented. Major and minor structure maintenance activities are expected to occur on 1-25 from US 36 to SH 1. Safety improvements are anticipated at selected locations from WCR 34 to SH 1. See Chapter 2 Alternatives for additional description of the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative does not include transit components. Surface Wafer Impervious Surfaces. Direct effects on surface water quality from increases in impervious surface area would be negligible under the No-Action Alternative. This is because the No-Action Alternative has relatively minor contributions of impervious surface area from any structure upgrades, such as interchange improvements or bridge replacements. • The quality of stormwater runoff would be dependent on the implementation of BMPs associated with No-Action Alternative activities within MS4 areas. Projects over one acre in size associated with the No-Action Alternative that are located within MS4 areas will require BMPs, thereby reducing impacts from increased impervious surface area. The percentage of the impervious surface area treated by BMPs for the No-Action Alternative is substantially less than either of the package alternatives. This means that the majority of stormwater runoff from 1-25 would continue to not be treated prior to discharging to water bodies. Under the No-Action Alternative, only 11.2 percent of the impervious surfaces within the project area are currently being treated. This area is within the SH 60 to E-470 component and the majority of increased pollutants deposited from vehicles would not pass through a BMP prior to discharge to receiving water bodies. Driscoll Model. As previously mentioned, the results of the Driscoll Model are presented as a screening tool to differentiate impacts among alternatives and not to determine if water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The No-Action Alternative has the lowest estimated contaminant loading of the four alternatives (see Table 3.7-5). The only watershed with an increase in loading greater than the existing conditions is the Clear Creek watershed. This component crosses the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, and Big Dry Creek watersheds. The remaining components have the same estimated loading as the existing conditions. Traffic. While the amount of impervious surfaces for the No-Action Alternative is approximately 689 to 744 acres less than the build package alternatives, the increase in future • traffic volumes should also be considered. Chemicals and other pollutants deposited along 1-25 within the project area and mobilized within stormwater runoff would continue to increase as traffic volumes continue to increase along the 1-25 highway corridor over time. The largest Water Resources 3.7-17 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • potential increase in traffic would likely occur in the SH 60 to E-470 and E-470 to US 36 components. This component crosses the Big Thompson River, St Vrain Creek, and Big Dry Creek watersheds. Construction. Major and minor structure maintenance activities, such as demolition and construction of bridges and interchange improvements would have construction-related impacts at all stream crossings if left unmitigated. These impacts and the proposed mitigation to minimize these impacts are included in Table 3.7-3. Drainage System. Major drainage impacts that result from cross drainage are addressed in Section 3.9 Floodplains. Minor drainage features includes storm drainage pipes, inlets, open channels, and other facilities that are used to convey local storm drainage. Drainage improvements associated with the No-Action Alternative would occur in several areas where roadway improvements are currently planned. Anticipated drainage improvements for the No-Action Alternative would include a more efficient storm drainage system of pipes, inlets, open channels, and water quality facilities. There would be no drainage improvements for the E-470 to US 36 component in the No-Action Alternative and impacts from an inadequate drainage system would occur in this area. Approximately 11.2 percent of the total No-Action Alternative impervious surface is expected to be treated through a water quality BMP. Groundwater Groundwater impacts are not expected as a result of major and minor structure maintenance • activities associated with the No-Action Alternative. 3.7.3.3 PACKAGE A Package A contains both highway and transit components. The package includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25 and implementation of commuter rail and commuter bus service. Construction of associated elements, such as commuter rail and bus stations, carpool lots, bridges, interchanges, and queue jumps, also was considered in this analysis. This package is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. For purposes of this analysis, impervious surface areas include 1-25 and associated interchanges, transit stations, maintenance facilities, and carpool lots. Rail lines were not included as impervious surfaces as part of this analysis because rail ballast material is relatively permeable. Surface Water Impervious Surfaces. Direct effects on surface water quality from all Package A components would result from the addition of paved impervious surfaces, primarily from highway widening for additional general purpose lanes and associated interchanges, bridges, and carpool lots. Package A has more total impervious surface area (1,946 total impervious surface acres) than the existing impervious area (1,212 total impervious surface acres), and the No-Action Alternative (1,257 total impervious surface acres). At the watershed level, impacts to water quality due to the addition of impervious surface area are expected to be the greatest, compared to the No-Action Alternative, as a result of highway widening in the Dry Creek • Watershed. Water Resources 3.7-18 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. To fully understand the impacts from impervious surface area for an alternative, it is important to consider the greater area surrounding the project. There are approximately 159,223 acres of total impervious surface area that exists within the regional study area from commercial and residential developments and other infrastructure. This gives context to the total impervious surface of Package A in relation to its surroundings that the impervious surface area associated with Package A is a small fraction (1.2 percent) of the overall impervious areas in the regional study area. Driscoll Model. As previously mentioned, the results of the Driscoll Model are presented as a screening tool to differentiate impacts among alternatives and not whether or not water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The Package A estimated contaminant load for the northern and southern components (SH 1 to SH 14 and E-470 to US 36, respectively) are slightly greater than the existing conditions. The Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson watersheds have the highest increased load from existing conditions, both approximately a 50 percent increase. These watersheds show the greatest increase in loading because they have a large increase in impervious surfaces. The Package A components estimated loadings are less than the Package B components. Traffic. In general, the projected traffic volumes are relatively similar between the project alternatives and range from nearly two to three times the existing traffic volumes (see Table 3.7-6). Package A would cause an increase in the amount of pollutants being washed from the roadway due to increased traffic volumes. All of the proposed traffic volumes for the Package A components are greater than 35,000 AADT. The greatest predicted travel demand • is generated in the southern portion of the project area between E-470 to US 36 followed by SH 60 to E-470, SH 14 to SH 60, and SH 1 to SH 14. However, the SH 1 to SH 14 component would be expected to have the most significant increase in pollutants because existing traffic in this segment is at times currently less than 30,000 AADT, which is generally characteristic of non-urban areas. Project activities in this segment would cause traffic to increase to levels characteristic of urban areas (i.e., greater than 30,000 AADT), which have higher pollutant concentrations of certain constituents when compared with non-urban areas with AADT less than 30,000 (see Section 3.7.3.1). If stormwater is left unmitigated, consequences from increased impervious surfaces and traffic would include an increase in water velocities and volumes (see Table 3.7-4). However, the incorporation of BMPs into the design will remove a large amount of the chemicals and sediment that could be deposited within surface water bodies within the project area. Under Package A, water quality ponds will provide a volume sufficient to treat approximately 1,765 acres (90.7 percent of the impervious surfaces within the project area. This is compared to the existing 2.4 percent of the impervious surfaces within the project area that are currently being treated. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve with Package A when compared to the existing or the No-Action Alternative conditions. Construction. The implementation of Package A would result in construction-related impacts at all stream/ditch/canal crossings if left unmitigated. Other water bodies that may not cross 1-25, but are within the construction footprint (including staging areas)would also be affected. The majority of construction related impacts results from the demolition and/or construction of structures, rail lines, and highway lanes. Construction-related impacts and the proposed 1111 mitigation to minimize these impacts are included in Table 3.7-3. The proposed construction mitigation measures are summarized in Section 3.7.4 and are required by permit and policy on CDOT projects. Water Resources 3.7-19 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Drainage. Major drainage impacts that result from cross drainage are addressed in Section 3.9 Floodplains. General purpose lanes on 1-25 for the SH 14 to SH 60 component and for the SH 60 to E-470 component would require that modifications be made to existing drainage systems or that a new drainage conveyance system be installed. By installing new drainage structures (e.g., storm drainage pipes, inlets, open channels and other facilities conveying local storm drainage), no additional impacts to the drainage system are anticipated. These structures could actually improve the drainage system when compared to the current and No-Action Alternative conditions. Groundwater The construction of Package A could require addressing up to 105 wells that are within the proposed right-of-way (see Table 3.7-7). The status and exact location of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify the necessary course of action for each well. Active wells would need to be relocated, and all active and non-active wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. 3.7.3.4 PACKAGE B Package B contains both highway and transit components. The package generally includes the construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25 and implementation of bus rapid transit service. Construction of associated elements, such as bus stations, carpool lots, bridges, interchanges, and queue jumps, was also considered in the component-level analysis. This package is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. For purposes of this analysis, impervious surface areas include 1-25 and associated • interchanges, transit station, maintenance facilities, and carpool lots. Surface Water Impervious Surfaces. Direct effects on surface water quality from Package B components would result from the addition of paved impervious surfaces, primarily from highway widening for additional tolled express lanes and associated interchanges, bridges, and carpool lots. Package B would result in more impervious surface area (2,001 acres)than the existing impervious area (1,212 acres), and the No-Action Alternative (1,257 acres). At the component level, impacts to water quality due to the addition of impervious surface area are expected to be the greatest in the Cache la Poudre River and Big Thompson River watersheds. To fully understanding the impacts from impervious surface area for an alternative, it is important to consider the greater area surrounding the project. There are approximately 159,223 acres of total impervious surface area that exist within the regional study area from commercial and residential developments and other infrastructure. This gives context to the total impervious surface of Package B in relation to its surroundings. Driscoll Model. As previously mentioned, the results of the Driscoll Model are presented as a screening tool to differentiate impacts among alternatives and not whether or not water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The Package B estimated contaminant load for the southern watersheds (Dry Creek, South Platte, and Clear Creek) are slightly greater than the existing conditions. The estimated loadings from the northern watersheds (Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson) are considerably greater than the existing conditions. The Cache la • Poudre River and Big Thompson River watersheds have the highest increased load from existing conditions, approximately a 68 and102 percent increase, respectively. Water Resources 3.7-20 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Package B has the greatest estimated loadings of all alternatives. Traffic. In general, the projected traffic volumes are relatively similar between the project alternatives and range from nearly two to three times the existing traffic volumes (see Table 3.7-6). Package B would cause an increase in the amount of pollutants being washed from the roadway due to increased traffic volumes. All of the proposed traffic volumes for the Package B components are greater than 35,000 AADT. The greatest predicted travel demand is generated in the southern portion of the project area between E-470 to US 36 followed by SH 60 to E-470, SH 14 to SH 60, and SH 1 to SH 14. If stormwater is left unmitigated, consequences from increased impervious surfaces and traffic would include an increase in water velocities and volumes, and an increase in the type and quantity of chemicals and other pollutants, such as sediment, that are deposited within the project area (see Table 3.7-3). However, the incorporation of BMPs into the roadway design will remove a large amount of chemicals and sediment deposited within surface water bodies within the project area. Under Package B, water quality ponds will provide a volume sufficient to treat approximately 2,509 acres (125 percent) of the impervious surfaces within the project area. This is compared to the existing 2.4 percent of the impervious surfaces within the project area that are currently being treated. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve when compared to the existing and No-Action Alternative conditions. Construction. The implementation of Package B would result in construction-related impacts at all stream/ditch/canal crossings if left unmitigated. Other water bodies that may not cross • 1-25, but are within the construction footprint (including staging areas)would also be affected. The majority of construction related impacts results from the demolition and/or construction of structures and highway lanes. Construction-related impacts and the typical mitigation to minimize these impacts are included in Table 3.7-3. The proposed construction mitigation measures are summarized in Section 3.7.4. Drainage. Major drainage impacts that result from cross drainage are addressed in Section 3.9 Floodplains. The roadway improvements associated with Package B would require existing drainage system modifications or a new drainage conveyance system. By installing new drainage structures (e.g., storm drainage pipes, inlets, open channels and other facilities conveying local storm drainage), no additional impacts to the drainage system are anticipated. These structures could actually improve the drainage system when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Groundwater The construction of Package B could require the relocation of up to 111 wells that are within the proposed right-of-way (see Table 3.7-7). The status and exact location of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify the necessary course of action. Active wells would need to be relocated, and all active and non-active wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. • Water Resources 3.7-21 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.7.3.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative contains both highway and transit components. The package includes construction of additional general purpose and tolled express lanes on 1-25 and implementation of commuter rail and commuter bus service. Construction of associated elements, such as commuter rail and bus stations, carpool lots, bridges, interchanges, and queue jumps, also was considered in this analysis. This package is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. For purposes of this analysis, impervious surface areas include 1-25 and associated interchanges, transit stations, maintenance facilities, and carpool lots. Rail lines were not included as impervious surfaces as part of this analysis because rail ballast material is relatively permeable. Surface Water Impervious Surfaces. Direct effects on surface water quality from Preferred Alternative components would result from the addition of paved impervious surfaces, primarily from highway widening for additional general purpose lanes and associated interchanges, bridges, and carpool lots. The Preferred Alternative would result in more impervious surface area (1,982 acres) than the existing impervious area (1,212 acres), the No-Action Alternative (1,257 acres), and Package A (1,946 acres), but less than Package B (2,001 acres). To fully understand the impacts from impervious surface area for an alternative, it is important to consider the greater area surrounding the project. There are approximately 159,223 acres of • total impervious surface area that exists within the regional study area from commercial and residential developments and other infrastructure. This gives context that the total impervious surface of the Preferred Alternative is a small fraction (1.2 percent) of the overall impervious area in the regional study area. The greatest increase in impervious surface occurs in the Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson watersheds. Driscoll Model. As previously mentioned, the results of the Driscoll Model are presented as a screening tool to differentiate impacts among alternatives and not to determine whether water quality standards are expected to be exceeded. The Preferred Alternative estimated contaminant load for the northern and central watersheds (Cache La Poudre, Big Thompson, St. Vrain, and Dry Creek, respectively) are slightly greater than the existing conditions. The estimated loadings from the two southern watersheds (South Platte and Clear Creek) are similar to the existing conditions and both Package A and Package B. The Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson watersheds have the highest increased load from existing conditions, both approximately a 50 percent increase. The Preferred Alternative components estimated loadings are generally higher than Package A components and less than the Package B components. Traffic. In general, the projected traffic volumes are relatively similar between the project alternatives and range from nearly two to three times the existing traffic volumes (see Table 3.7-6). The Preferred Alternative would cause an increase in the amount of pollutants being washed from the roadway due to increased traffic volumes. All of the proposed traffic volumes for the Preferred Alternative components are greater than 35,000 AADT. The greatest predicted travel demand is generated in the southern portion of the project area between • E-470 to US 36, followed by SH 60 to E-470, SH 14 to SH 60, and SH 1 to SH 14. However, the SH 1 to SH 14 component would be expected to have the most significant increase in Water Resources 3.7-22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. pollutants because existing traffic in this segment is at times currently less than 30,000 AADT, which is generally characteristic of non-urban areas. Project activities in this segment would cause traffic to increase to levels characteristic of urban areas (i.e., greater than 30,000 AADT), which have higher pollutant concentrations of certain constituents when compared with non-urban areas with AADT less than 30,000 (see Section 3.7.3.1). If stormwater is left unmitigated, consequences from increased impervious surfaces and traffic would include an increase in water velocities and volumes (see Table 3.7-4). However, the incorporation of BMPs into the design will remove a substantial amount of the chemicals and sediment that could be deposited within surface water bodies within the project area. Under the Preferred Alternative, water quality ponds will provide a volume sufficient to treat approximately 2,009 acres (101 percent) of the impervious surfaces within the project area. This is compared to the existing 2.4 percent of the impervious surfaces within the project area that are currently being treated. Consequently, it is anticipated that water quality conditions will improve with the Preferred Alternative when compared to the existing or the No-Action Alternative conditions. Construction. The implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in construction- related impacts at all stream/ditch/canal crossings if left unmitigated. Other water bodies that may not cross 1-25, but are within the construction footprint (including staging areas) would also be affected. The majority of construction related impacts results from the demolition and/or construction of structures, rail lines, and highway lanes. Construction-related impacts and the proposed mitigation to minimize these impacts are included in Table 3.7-3. The • proposed construction mitigation measures are summarized in Section 3.7.4 and are required by permit and policy on CDOT projects. Drainage. Major drainage impacts that result from cross drainage are addressed in Section 3.9 Floodplains. General purpose lanes on I-25 for the SH 14 to SH 60 component and for the SH 60 to E-470 component would require that modifications be made to existing drainage systems or that a new drainage conveyance system be installed. By installing new drainage structures (e.g., storm drainage pipes, inlets, open channels and other facilities conveying local storm drainage), no additional impacts to the drainage system are anticipated. These structures could actually improve the drainage system when compared to the current and No-Action Alternative conditions. Groundwater The construction of the Preferred Alternative could require addressing up to 112 wells that are within the proposed right-of-way (see Table 3.7-7). The status and exact location of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify the necessary course of action for each well. Active wells would need to be relocated, and all active and non-active wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures This section summarizes the BMPs that have been incorporated as water quality mitigation measures into the build packages. • Water Resources 3.7-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.7.4.1 SURFACE WATER QUALITY If stormwater runoff is left unmitigated, the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would have water quality impacts due to changes in stormwater characteristics from the addition of impervious surface area and increases in traffic levels. Other impacts would result from the demolition and construction of roadways and structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, piers, retaining walls) near surface water bodies. To reduce the impacts to water resources, a combination of mitigation measures consisting of permanent structural, nonstructural, and temporary construction BMPs will be implemented in the project area, in compliance with the Clean Water Act and CDOT's MS4 permit requirements. BMPs will include water collection and passive treatment of stormwater, which is currently being directly discharged into existing water systems. In addition, the BMPs may also provide protection to receiving waters from chemical spills that could occur in the project area. During the design process, CDOT will coordinate and share information with other MS4 Permit holders to ensure that the project is in compliance with all applicable permits. If there is an identified conflict in requirements, the most stringent regulations or specifications will be followed. Structural BMPs Permanent structural BMPs have already been identified and sited for major stream systems in the project area. Permanent structural BMPs will be constructed with the project and maintained to ensure their functionality. Water quality ponds and riprap outlet protection are examples of structural BMPs. The performance criteria for the water quality ponds within the • project area are consistent with CDOT's current MS4 design criteria identified in the New Development and Redevelopment Program (CDOT, 2004b). During the design phase, the ponds or other structural BMPs will comply with the current requirement in the New Development and Redevelopment Program. The removal efficiencies for these types of BMPs (e.g., extended detention basin) are 50 percent to 70 percent (TSS), 10 percent to 20 percent (total phosphorus), and 30 percent to 60 percent (total zinc) (CDOT, 2004b). Water Quality Ponds. Extended detention/retention ponds have been identified as the primary structural BMP for this project. Another example of a structural BMPs is an underground vault. The exact type of structural BMP will be determined during final design. The No-Action Alternative has only two areas with BMPs (water quality ponds), associated with the No-Action Alternative improvements. Additional water quality ponds have been incorporated into the design of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Physical design constraints, adjacent property uses, and right-of-way requirements were analyzed and considered during the design process. It is anticipated that types and sizes of BMPs could be modified in the future. When possible, passive BMPs (e.g., grass swales or natural infiltration) will be used for ephemeral streams along the corridor that could reasonably discharge pollutants into perennial stream systems. An option for future consideration is to investigate the ability to develop a regional water quality plan between multiple MS4s and watershed organizations. The preliminary drainage design for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative is based on the CDOT Drainage Design Manual (CDOT, 2004a) and Volume 3 of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (UDFCD, 2010). • Water Resources 3.7-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. As previously mentioned, during final design, BMPs other than water quality ponds may be used. It is anticipated that any alternate BMPs will be able to be incorporated within the right- of-way identified for this EIS. The locations for water quality ponds have been identified throughout the project area for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. The placement of these BMPs was determined using a rating system that was based on existing and likely future MS4 areas, locations of sensitive surface water systems and/or irrigation canals, and physical design opportunities. More detailed information on BMP placement is provided in the Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report (FHU, 2008b) and Addendum (FHU, 2011b). Figures 3.7-6, 3.7-7, and 3.7-8 show the areas along the 1-25 corridor where water quality ponds are proposed. They also show the reason why ponds were included in each particular stretch of the corridor. As previously discussed, Package A would provide ponds with a capacity to treat 90.7 percent of the total impervious surface area, while Package B would provide ponds with a capacity to treat 125 percent of the total impervious surface area. The Preferred Alternative would provide ponds with a capacity to treat 101 percent of the total impervious area. A percentage greater than 100 indicates that the volume provided is greater than the defined water quality capture volume, which is equal to one-half inch of rainfall times the impervious area. These are dramatically greater than the existing conditions (2.4 percent) and the No-Action Alternative (11.2 percent). Water quality ponds are only proposed along the 1-25 corridor. No roadway improvements are • proposed along the US 85 corridor. The only additions of impervious surface are very small bus queue jumps at select intersections in Package A. The WQCV for these queue jumps is less than 0.1 acre-feet. These improvements are a great distance from the primary additional impervious surface areas (approximately 7 miles) and as such, permanent water quality features are not included at these locations. It is not practical to place water quality ponds along the US 85 corridor because a new drainage system would be required to carry the water to a BMP. The application of water quality ponds as part of the Preferred Alternative is expected to reduce the amount of iron discharged from the roadway to Segment 1 of Big Dry Creek, which is on CDPHE's Monitoring and Evaluation list for Iron, by approximately 50 to 60 percent (FDEP, 1999). The improvements in this area, where Segment 1 of Big Dry Creek lies, are expected to increase all pollutant loadings—including iron—by approximately 30 percent (see Table 3.7-10). This demonstrates that the water quality ponds can improve the water quality conditions at Big Dry Creek over the existing conditions. The same reduction would be expected for Package B since the project footprint is the same in this segment of the watershed. However, Package A does not have any roadway improvements in this area and therefore no water quality ponds would be provided to reduce the current iron loadings from the No-Action Alternative conditions. Dissolved copper removal in water quality ponds is less than that of iron. Dissolved copper in Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are estimated to increase by 42, 59, and 47 percent, respectively, over the existing conditions. Data from the USEPA shows that dissolved copper in extended dry detention basins ranges from 1.4 to 38 percent removal (USEPA, 2008). While this is a wide range, it does show that there is potential for the • proposed water quality ponds to remove dissolved copper to a level close to existing conditions. Water Resources 3.7-25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • As previously stated, removal efficiencies of 50 to 70 percent for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 10 to 20 percent for total phosphorus, and 50 to 60 percent for iron are expected for the proposed water quality ponds. Riprap. Riprap will be placed at bridge abutments, piers, and at critical portions of a channel or floodplain to avoid progressive or catastrophic failure of a structure. Riprap reduces water quality impacts by protecting stream systems from accelerated erosion and sedimentation processes that could occur from structures (see Table 3.7-8). The most effective method of stabilization at bridge abutments and piers is the use of riprap. Riprap that is correctly sized, is angular, and placed on a granular material or fabric, has a better record for erosion and scour protection than other methods such as vegetative cover. Despite its reliability, riprap must still be monitored and maintained. More detailed information on riprap layout and aesthetics is provided in the Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report (FHU, 2008c) and Addendum (FHU, 2011b). Energy dissipation devices or materials, such as riprap, will control post-construction erosion near the bridge. According to SB40 Guidelines, riprap used above the ordinary high water level of the river that is not directly under a bridge must be covered with topsoil and vegetated. Nonstructural BMPs (Construction and Post-Construction) Nonstructural BMPs reduce or eliminate pollutant mobilization within stormwater runoff. Street sweeping, snow storage, and spill containment measures are examples of post-construction nonstructural BMPs. Project construction phasing is another nonstructural BMP to be implemented to minimize water quality impacts. Phasing construction activities minimizes the • effects associated with large areas of exposed ground and with soil compaction from heavy machinery use, both of which are commonly associated with transportation projects. Construction nonstructural BMPs include mulch/mulch tackifier, vegetated buffer strips, and preservation of mature vegetation. Temporary Structural BMPs (Construction) There is also potential for impacts to surface water bodies during the demolition and construction of roadways and structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, piers, retaining walls). A Stormwater Management Plan and Notebook will be prepared in accordance with the current CDOT practices to ensure that temporary construction impacts are avoided or minimized. Temporary structural BMPs are implemented to control erosion and sediment associated with areas of ground disturbance while construction activities take place. These measures remain in place until CDOT determines they are no longer needed at the construction sites, such as when soil stabilizing vegetation has been reestablished. Silt fences, straw bale barriers, and temporary check dams are examples of temporary structural BMPs used during construction. • Water Resources 3.7-26 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.7-5 Package A - Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments I LEGEND Package A A/ Study Corridors "/ Highways _. W,Singron / Arterial Roads ••• J .\ 1 /\ L i Regional Study Area ) 7� / f �•,\ le City Boundaries %C ' L_ /- CACHE LA POUDRE I , w Cities & Towns in Project Area i - WATERSIED \, Current MS4 Area I u,t t.rWo I - 824 ac treated ^M^- Major Streams & Rivers J `=r I` I -S_ 1 1 I - , 1 , :..._- I. i I ( I 287 ', Future MS4 Area — •••' ""' • -- I — 34 ac treated , r I Luce } - ' (,N:he la Pourfrc Firver �4 ie,v34 _ . 1► ��_ Lovelar' ( 34 it G Tromp ON • ERSHED �n 6i ;LiSensitivewaters"' (LittleThompson)il -\_ i56 1 -- —114 ac treated 0 1 Additional i "l"`' SOUTH PLATTE / 196 ac treated i ? WATERSHED ! due to transit i Nit:. J s i . via c ; components 66 I m1+ onrlriUnl � , 9Jli -- r a Available Area —�� 1 (WCR 34 Interchange) ST. VRAIN j -108 ac treated '/ WATERSHED o , /''‘) Future MS4 Area ri I -50 ac treated 0 1 h sr_erfr,._± / " . ° ,:.'t�,<rr,t , •616 , /7.6. 0 DRY CREEK i `Sensitive Water WATERSHED() (I 190 ac tre ated eated oulder L_7 1 l_ • i �_� nhuld •\• . • •N 36 0\q `�. -- current MS4 Area I—j , - 2$ C\\ 1-249 ac treated 1 t X..4 CLEAR CR: K / ka.- .*--) l ' WALiERSHtD �, / t1 i` t LPenver--.' 70 ' - _� 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 ® _ _�!� „S ' Miles North _/ 1 ),\ '•••\.,..\\ 1 -±-, Water Resources 3.7-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.7-6 Package B - Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments LEGEND Package B A/ Study Corridors ",/ Highways � _ -�.I Wellington •\. /\/ Arterial Roads t / ••�,,85 L. Regional Study Area ,t •)me ' ® •,ile \ City Boundaries C I'CACHE IA POUDRE ' Current MS4 Area • Cities & Towns in Project Area I WATERSHED V' - . - 1036 ac treated Far•!i,r ill. . ^ti•^- Major Streams & Rivers ! �_�_<< • x_. . 41 --a -"257 r< I • nth o j c.;eante i Future MS4 Area 287 - 35 ac treated T o � t � i392 -t cite la Poudrt. Rives'.' , ' - Greeley i\ 34 r if-6a 1 �--. ! i „�: I Lovelan. _.._..;.,� 34 G THQ.MPSON''re I • RSHED wool / r 1 Ilirtr.:,;. -Big r(ampian a _�„Blve 60 I a ,'o <,- 85 Sensitive waters J - : P::rtt(4 r: _ __ A /----- / (Little Thompson) I -114 ac treated � T �ilues • Additional 1 SOUTH PLATTE % 0 70 ac treated i ��m WATERSHED ! / due to transit i c s =tea_JI ` ____ components 66 si.__.'_i -_ 1 ' Available Area 1 ' m (WCR 34 interchange) i ongmon, _ I —121 ac treated �/ ST. VRAIN a . 1 i J WATERSHED o i = Future MS4 Area % 287 —69 ac treated Nwrit �. -r&liiir-ii _, �► /• I0 Dawn �� t xi l,,n: , a 52 :Kitt ' f BIG' I Sensitive Waters 119- Ile DRY CREEK (st. vrain) , 1) t Inn ) -76 ac treated WATERSHED. Wit'rih3y ! / ( Boulder ' 7 - III - I r a Lata;a to I 1 7 1 $� Future MS4 Area • I Uc:,dlr ¢n i..ern, . —136 ac treated. `��. arOrnIttr. lI � 0 �``�< 0�A0 N ,p,t - � ► . 1- -_ — Current MM Area . 36 S�' a o Ity" l,ri 1-852 ac treated - ,... 1 CLEAR CR - K L ,j ,. C. L.—. AjERS,YHH !f /I ) Gie c(et / l/� -r.-I , S tnver� � 70 I IV 0 2 4 6 8 10 I„f i' •I I ' I I I Miles North Water Resources 3.7-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.7-7 Preferred Alternative - Areas of Future Water Quality Treatments LEGEND Al Study Corridors rt/ Highways "/ Arterial Roads aAs/ �; �5( ! ' j —He .... \ i � Regional Study Area iceIS City Boundaries j `' I CACHE LA POUDRE ' a Cities & Towns in Project Area j WATERSHED • —4,— Major Streams & Rivers I -_- - -_• `I ""1T I I i 271 -- I 1 , —, , .. i,,,,,,1I1 , I 1 1 I T1 1 ._ 1. 392 I i _ � Cache la Pnudre :fiver 1 kireeley I __W ■ 3 r. 34 .__ \ 1 2E,3 BIG 1FIOMPSON �- ''� I "Per 7 �9 'h° `� r WATERSHED f ion r-- 435 Acres I �r. 1 ThnmP> ai Treated I:amcion 7 e ''T: -`•' -Biv..tliver 60 , / 1 85 i. 56 - ._. 0 II 4� Fl----1 . ,�sa nu. ��e• . ' 4, SOU iH PLATTE / 147 Acres m WATERSfED % Treated e . / • 1 I ' m Eungmmtl I • - I brit I St.Vtaln !♦ ST. VRAIN \talhna 0 i `t, ,. 386 Acres WATERSHED ' Treated ;i- a r, I i Nlwot 0 7 f • a. BIG i 32 0 ,, mtrarre I �= 1T9 P. si, i DRY CREEK 1 ' , _--1`I" WATERSHEDQ�j 76 Boulder 1 i0 .1.ay e' . Nom;1 :S 1 ' �` Ii �, `-_ .... . . - li-rvt '- •• Gt2C V • - • 3:i_Dry!ae6 N. OCk i 267 Acres 93 N. 0`°' • Treated 28 . CD /� I ; / `5 i : 72 CLEAR CREEK , (---. WA 1ERSHED / a�Creek • Df:nvcram•♦ it 70 In heated i ,% N,, ) — -----1------ 8 10 ! .1 U L.. Miles North '•r )\_ k"—N.1..„ _ , --- Water Resources 3.7-29 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • CDOT's specifications for managing stormwater at a construction site (currently specifications 107.25, 208, 212, 213, and 216)will be followed. When put into practice, the actions identified below will help avoid construction impacts: ► If lead paint is present, this material must not be allowed to flake off and enter receiving waters. (Section 402, Clean Water Act, CDPHE Regulation 61). ► If cranes and other equipment are used for bridge demolition within a river or streambank area, the equipment will be kept out of the river as much as practicable, or per compliance with Section 404 permit, and all work shall minimize temporary impacts to the river. The creation of a crane pad is necessary if cranes or other equipment cannot be kept out of the river. ► There is a potential for sediment to enter streams from land disruption and subsequent erosion. Therefore, BMPs such as protecting existing vegetation, placing structural BMPs, and limiting access areas will be implemented in compliance with the CDPHE general construction permit. Stormwater management plans must be developed during design and implemented during construction, and updated as needed to keep the project in compliance with the CDPS-SCP permit for the site. ► Caissons used to create bridge piers could require groundwater dewatering. A discharge permit and a treatment strategy may be needed before dewatering activities can occur. ► If other regulated materials are present within or on structures, they must be removed and appropriately recycled or disposed of prior to demolition activities. Typical materials include • containerized regulated liquids such as paints, solvents, oil, grease, chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides, and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) containing equipment (equipment must be emptied before equipment is removed) [Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations (6 Colorado Code of Regulations [CCR] 1007-3)]. ► Senate Bill 40 (SB40) certification from the CDOW is required when construction occurs in "any streams or its banks or tributaries". This permit coordination will include identification of measures to protect existing riparian areas, such as mitigating stormwater runoff or replacing riparian vegetation (on a 1:1 basis for trees and a square footage basis for shrubs). Permanent structural BMPs, nonstructural BMPs, and temporary construction BMPs must be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure functionality and efficiency. This includes inspections of proper BMP operation, outfall discharges and erosion protection, and detention pond sediment removal. 3.7.4.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY The status of groundwater well use will have to be determined prior to construction activities to identify if active wells are present. Active wells in the final right-of-way will need to be relocated and non-active wells would need to be plugged, sealed, and abandoned. All wells that lie within the proposed right-of-way will be included in all project specifications and plan drawings. If any of these wells are affected by project activities, coordination with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety will be required. If necessary, wells must be plugged, sealed, and abandoned according to CDOT • Section 202.02 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and in conformance with the State Engineer well abandonment procedures. Water Resources 3.7-30 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. If groundwater is encountered during activities associated with excavations for caisson/retaining walls, the discharge of groundwater is authorized if the following conditions are met and then a dewatering permit is not required: ► A Construction Stormwater Permit has been obtained; ► the source is groundwater and/or groundwater combined with stormwater that does not contain pollutants in concentrations exceeding the State groundwater standards in Regulations 5 CCR 1002-41 and 42; ► the discharge is in accordance with the CDPHE-WQCD Water Quality Policy-27, Low-Risk Discharges—September 2009; ► the source is identified in the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP); ► dewatering BMPs are included in the SWMP, and ► these discharges do not leave the site as surface runoff or to surface waters. If these conditions are not met, then a separate Clean Water Act Section 402 Construction Dewatering Permit or Individual Construction Dewatering Permit will be required to be obtained from the CDPHE - WQCD. In addition, if dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005c). • 3.7.4.3 DRAINAGE Approximate locations of water quality ponds are shown in the Concept Plans Technical Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011 b). Higher flows will be allowed to pass off of the right-of—way and into a drainageway. Storm drainage should be separated from irrigation facilities, wetlands, and sensitive areas. Drainage at bridges, super elevation transitions, ramp gores, and low areas will be analyzed and coordinated into the design. This detailed storm drainage for the any build alternative will be determined during final design. The implementation of commuter rail or bus service will require similar drainage improvements. The CDOT Drainage Design Manual, the CDOT Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide (CDOT, 2002b), and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual will be consulted for guidance during design. • Water Resources 3.7.31 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Water Resources 3.7-32 • NORTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.8 Wetlands • • Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.8 WETLANDS In recognition of the importance of clean water and the ecological value of wetlands, What's in Section 3.8? in 1977 the U.S. Congress passed the 3.8 Wetlands Clean Water Act (CWA)to protect the 3.8.1 Affected Environment physical, biological, and chemical quality of 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences waters of the U.S., including adjacent 3.8.2.1 No-Action Alternative wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA defines 3.8.2.2 Package A waters of the U.S. as all traditional 3.8.2.3 Package B navigable waters and their tributaries, all 3.8.2.3 Preferred Alternative interstate waters and their tributaries, all 3.8.2.4 Indirect Impacts Common All Packages wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all 3.8.2.5 Wetland Functional Values impoundments of these waters. The US 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Regulatory Program administers, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces, Section 404 of the CWA. The definition of waters of the U.S. under USACE jurisdiction does not include wetlands that lack a surface connection to, and therefore are isolated from, regulated waters. In projects with federal funding or oversight, a second piece of legislation, Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands, directs the lead federal agencies, in this instance Federal Highway Administration • (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), to protect isolated wetlands by avoiding direct or indirect support of construction in wetlands when a practicable alternative is available. For the purpose of this wetlands Section 3.8, here after, Waters of the U.S. will be referred to as jurisdictional open waters. Consultation with USACE, EPA, Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has occurred and is documented in Appendix B Agency Coordination. The North I-25 project is being conducted using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/404 merger process. The NEPA/404 merger process is guided by and supports the requirements of Section 404 of the CWA, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations, and the Memorandum of Agreement among the USACE, FHWA, and COOT. The NEPA/404 merger agreement requires consultation on four key points: (1) Project Purpose and Need, (2)Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation, (3) the Preferred Alternative, and (4) Compensatory Mitigation. • Wetlands 3.8-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III 1 3.8.1 Affected Environment 2 Wetlands are ecosystems where soils 3 are saturated with water for long ,y -. ' yd '1q� 4 periods during the growing season andik , 445: ` • .4' 5 therefore generally support plant -,/ ' 6 species adapted for very wet . ' ;,M �, . . ., 7 environments. In Colorado, wetland '.. NA ‘- # ' . , .. ., . • , ,' „ i. . - 8 areas cover approximately 2 percent of :q, 9 the land surface but provide a wide 10 variety of economically and ecologically r � Ar : : " i fi� t -rF•r !• • h• LL. Y. 11 important functions. Wetlands provide ,'. f " ` `�. , 12 water quality improvement, groundwater7 r � `' 13 recharge/ discharge, bank stabilization, `'� r '=' ' 14 flood protection , food chain support, fish ... . . 1_, L', ---..1.;... •-•- :---.7 ‘:sil .,� . • b. - 15 and wildlife habitat, rare species habitat, , . . ' ` '_ �s o, ,,,p" 08/16/2005 16 education and research , and recreation. ,,, ;: r;- i 17 Wetlands in the project area were Big Thompson River 18 delineated during late spring through 19 the early fall seasons of 2005 and 2006 20 (Ecotone, 2006). Wetlandr 21 determinations were based on 22 documenting the presence of diagnostic . 23 environmental characteristics forIII � , 4.- . = ' �: -24 vegetation , hydrology, and soils as - , , . *. 25 outlined in the Corps of Engineers . . ;: .� ` ,, r �;, , r, 1 i. 26 Wetlands Delineation Manual , ; 27 (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 ). '' 28 As the accompanying photos depict, 29 wetlands in the project area generally ` _ ? , , , , a 30 occur along streams, roadside ditches, . ' •" 31 irrigation ditches and canals, and at l 32 pond margins. Major streams in the - 0' 16%1 ' ' 33 project area are Big Dry Creek, Big ' 34 Thompson River, Box Elder Creek, 35 Cache la Poudre River, Clear Creek, Typical Roadside Ditch 36 Fossil Creek, Little Dry Creek, Little 37 Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, South Platte River, and Spring Creek. These water resources 38 are shown in Figure 3.8-1 . 0 Wetlands 3.8-2 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Wetlands are the transition zone between aquatic and upland habitats and are defined by the USAGE as, "those areas inundated or saturated by • _ _ r. surface or groundwater at a frequency ~n IA' t, and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, IC a prevalence of vegetation typically c adapted for life in saturated soil 1 i conditions." Based on the classifications 11 of waters and wetlands developed by 1K_ Cowardin and others (USFWS, 1979), 13 wetland types present include palustrine -a. = • 14 emergent systems with persistent 08/10/2005 1F vegetation and palustrine scrub-shrub 1 € systems with broad-leaved deciduous Typical Irrigation Canal 17 shrubs. Common wetland species include cattail ( Typha sp. ), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), sedges ( Carex sp. ), rushes • (Juncus sp. ), and narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua). . -r A Wetland Assessment Form was used • 2L to rate wetland functions (Jacobs, 2006). Wetland functions _ typically include water quality R improvement, groundwater • I" recharge/discharge, bank stabilization , flood protection , food chain support, , . ; and/or wildlife habitat. 09/08/2005 Wetland acreage and type is te summarized below. Detailed information Typical Ponded Area on wetland types, locations, functions, and jurisdictional status is provided in the North 1-25 Wetland and Waters of the U. S. Technical Report (Jacobs, 2008b) and the Technical Memorandum Addendum: Wetlands and Other Waters of the U. S (Jacobs, 2011d ). Wetlands 3.8-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. II Figure 3.8-1 Water Resources in the Project Area / LEGEND ~ Study Corridors _ "/ Highways !� ,! VIinglon /\/ Medal Roads ..- •-\ 85 28/ i m �• `� �.J Regional Study Area ,_ • a \\ City Boundaries ��be. Pierce• ' , `d,AO o \ a Cities & Towns in Project Area ( Fort Co 1)R,f m Streams and Rivers I Ad, 14 Lakes 257 ,, I Tunnath 0 EatonSeverance 20 i t!S,/cW,rIdsQL k �4 1 Lucerne I , _ _ 1 i 1 I •Greeley . _ 34Th-- _ ' _ �r. B. N. Garden is ty .� i Love.lanc! 9r� t 34 0 , . . oto Eva. 0'Pri / _ La Salle Campion "� Johnstown :/ i 60 .. RNart` / son 9 Milliken 85 / Li Berthoud 008181 °t"p i • I Grkrest, • ® / I • 0 a Mead / • 0 •� 4 Platteville 2 I Longmont Saintrin Creek / 4 lane . I • Vollmm Q I . •I / 0 Firestone Niwot at Frederick I / 1 i / 0 Decono Ion Lupton ; 52 /`� 0 Gunnbarrel �k I : i 410 O Valmont Erie 0�G �V 1{` / O O 0VVanenherg Boulder ' 0� i tr. t ata,.;.au(iiii ' / • Louisville \. BrlghlCn 7 /\.� Supma ® I \' / Eastlake '•\ BroarAirAd 9 Henderson—. / ••� f / \,• \ Noirhgkno / • 36 K 0 Thornton • le . I / • / ja. ___ Denver--.iv ./�j I I;i 7N -ThN_±.---.. 0 2 4 6 8 10 /-� NI ill j i' V - Miles North .. , z -I 4I.p Jocunvnl.CO ,SItCy Mi_W mad• 2.22-2007 Wetlands 3.8-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Results of the wetland inventory within the project area are summarized in Table 3.8-1. Table 3.8-1 Total Wetland Acreage Existing within the North I-25 Project Area Wetland Type Existing Acreage Palustrine Scrub/Shrub 139.37 Palustrine Emergent 394.67 Open Waters* 140.83 Total Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Waters 674.87 ' For the purpose of this document,open waters are defined as perennial and intermittent waterways, or bodies of water including irrigation canals, ponds, lakes,and reservoirs. Wetland Jurisdiction On June 5, 2007, the EPA and USAGE issued agency guidance, effective immediately, regarding jurisdiction of the CWA following the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos vs. United States. The guidance has been issued to ensure that jurisdictional determinations under the CWA are consistent with the Rapanos decision and provide efficient protection for the nation's water resources. Further information regarding jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional open water is presented in the North 1-25 Wetland and Waters of the U.S.Technical Report(Jacobs, 2008b) and in the Technical Memorandum Addendum: Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S (Jacobs, 2011d). • Existing acreage for wetlands and jurisdictional open waters has been confirmed by the USAGE, and confirmation letters can be found in Appendix A of the Technical Memorandum Addendum: Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S (Jacobs, 2011d). On November 4, 2008, the USACE Denver Regulatory Office issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for wetlands and jurisdictional open waters along the 1-25 highway corridor. On March 20, 2009, USAGE provided a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for wetlands and jurisdictional open waters along the commuter rail corridor. A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination assumes all wetlands and open waters are jurisdictional for determining impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements. Typical wetland vegetation occurring in emergent wetlands in the project area include cattail species, common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), arctic rush (Juncus arcticus), reed canarygrass, Emory's sedge (Carex emorr), smooth horsetail (Equisetum laevigata), bluejoint (Calamagrostis candadensis), clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis), foxtail barley (Hordeumjubatum), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Typical vegetation occurring in scrub-shrub wetlands in the project area include various mixes of emergent wetland vegetation in the understory and an overstory primarily dominated in part or combination of narrowleaf willow, boxelder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica), crack willow (Salix fragilis), and plains cottonwood saplings (Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera). Riparian zones/buffers are present next to a majority of wetlands occurring along streams, irrigation ditches and canals, and at pond margins. These riparian zones provide important • ecological assistance to the existing wetlands and surrounding ecosystem. Typical roles associated with riparian zones include soil/floodplain stability, sediment trap, pollutant filter, wildlife habitat and migration corridors, and water quality improvement. Wetlands 3.8.5 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Typical vegetation occurring in riparian zones along wetlands in the project area include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), Woods' rose (Rosa woodsif), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), crack willow (Salix fragilis), boxelder, narrowleaf willow, green ash, and a mixture of various emergent wetland vegetation. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences Environmental consequences include impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open waters from all improvements within an alternative (e.g. interchanges, structural improvements, safety upgrades, feeder bus, and maintenance facilities). Impacts for each build alternative are summarized below. For further discussion of components for these Packages, see the North 1-25 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Technical Report(Jacobs, 2008b) and the Technical Memorandum Addendum: Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S (Jacobs, 2011d). Potential effects on wetlands were evaluated according to: ► Direct impacts (acreage) by project alternatives and component ► Indirect impacts ► Changes in wetland functions and values While each resource is assessed for impacts related to all improvements within an alternative (e.g. interchanges, structural improvements, safety upgrades, carpool lots, feeder bus, maintenance facilities), only those areas where impacts would occur are discussed. As a result, • not every element of an alternative is discussed. Mitigation measures are also described. 3.8.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2035. These actions would take place regardless of whether any of the proposed improvements in Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative occur. The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. The No-Action Alternative would generally not affect existing wetland resources, except those associated with development activities and rehabilitation of major and minor structures. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.8.1, would continue. With increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to wetland resources would be expected. Effects from existing or increasing development volumes on wetland resources could result in wetland loss to permanent fill areas, increased sedimentation, waterway channelization, wetland habitat fragmentation, and mortality from vehicle collisions with wildlife species utilizing wetland habitats. 3.8.2.2 PACKAGE A Components of Package A include safety improvements, construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, structure upgrades, and the implementation of commuter rail and commuter bus service. Development of these components would result in impacts totaling an • estimated 18.33 acres of wetlands, and 3.54 acres of jurisidictional open waters (see Table 3.8-2). Wetlands 3.8.6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 3.8-2 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package A Components Package A PEM PSS Jurisdictional Totals Com onent Location (acres) (acres) Open Waters* (acres) p (acres) 1-25 Safety Improvements A-H1 I SH 1 to SH 14 0 0 0 0 1-25 General Purpose Lanes A-H2 SH 14 to SH 60 7.10 2.09 1.42 10.61 A-H3 SH 60 to E-470 3.97 0.89 0.42 5.28 1-25 Structure Upgrades A-H4 I E-470 to US 36 I 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 Commuter Rail A-T1 Ft. Collins to Longmont 0.70 0.18 0.27 1.15 A-T2 Longmont to North Metro Denver 1.69 1.71 1.43 4.83 Commuter Bus A-T3 Greeley to North Metro Denver 0 0 0 0 A-T4 Greeley to DIA 0 0 0 0 Commuter Rail Stations 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Facilities 0 0 0 0 Package A Totals: 13.46 4.87 3.54 21.87 PEM....Palustrine emergent wetland PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland *For the purpose of this document,jurisdictional open waters are defined as perennial and intermittent waterways,or bodies of water including irrigation canals, ponds,lakes,and reservoirs. Safety Improvements Safety improvements proposed in Package A would have no direct or indirect impacts on wetlands or jurisdictional open waters. General Purpose Lanes Under Package A, one additional northbound and one additional southbound general purpose lane would be constructed between SH 14 and SH 60 (A-H2)and SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3). Implementation of the general purpose lanes for Package A would affect 15.89 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open water. The majority of impacts associated with this component would be associated with construction activities requiring clearing, grading, or vegetation removal adjacent to and in the floodplains of perennial waterways. Impacts are primarily anticipated to occur along Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Little Dry Creek, Little Thompson River, South Platte River, and St. Vrain Creek. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. The construction of general purpose lanes proposed under Package A would have direct impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open water within the alternative footprint as a result of fill • placement caused by construction of transportation improvements, such as roadway widening Wetlands 3.8-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • and realignment, new alignments, and intersection improvements. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. Structure Upgrades Package A would provide structural upgrades between E-470 and US 36. Due to a lack of wetlands within construction areas, the proposed structure upgrades under Package A would have no direct or indirect impacts on wetlands or jurisdictional open water. Commuter Rail Package A includes the construction of a commuter rail line from Fort Collins to Longmont, continuing from Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Corridor. Commuter rail installations and stations associated with components A-T1 and A-T2 would have direct impacts to 5.98 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open water within the alternative footprint as a result of fill placement caused by construction of railway components, such as track installation and alignment, maintenance facilities, and station locations. The great majority of these impacts would occur as a result of component A-T2. The majority of impacts for these components would occur along Big Thompson River, Boulder Creek, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, and Big Thompson River. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. • Commuter Bus Package A includes the addition of commuter bus service and associated stations between Greeley, Denver, and Denver International Airport (DIA). The commuter bus lines would operate on existing roadways and would have no direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or jurisdictional open water. Stations are immediately adjacent to the roadway and would have no direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or jurisdictional open water. 3.8.2.3 PACKAGE B Components of Package B include safety improvements, construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) service and associated stations. Development of these components would result in impacts totaling 19.01 acres of wetlands, and 2.28 acres of jurisdictional open water (Table 3.8-3). • Wetlands 3.8-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.8-3 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Water from Package B Components Package B PEM PSS Jurisdictional Totals Open Waters' Component Location (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 1-25 Safety Improvements BH-1 ISH1toSH14 0 0 0 0 1-25 Tolled Express Lanes BH-2 SH 14 to SH 60 9.67 2.84 1.76 14.27 BH-3 SH 60 to E-470 4.15 0.95 0.43 5.53 BH-4 E-470 to US 36 0.52 0.36 0.09 0.97 Bus Rapid Transit Ft. Collins/Greeley to B-T1 North Metro Denver 0 0 0 0 B-T2 Ft. Collins to DIA 0 0 0 0 BRT Stations Ft. Collins to Greeley 0.52 0 0 0.52 Ft. Collins to North 0 0 0 0 Metro Denver Metro Denver to DIA 0 0 0 0 Maintenance Facilities 0 0 0 0 Package B Totals: 14.86 4.15 2.28 21.29 PEM....Palustrine emergent wetland • PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland *For the purpose of this document,jurisdictional open waters are defined as perennial and intermittent waterways,or bodies of water including irrigation canals, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. Safety Improvements Safety improvements proposed in Package B would have no direct or indirect impacts on wetlands or jurisdictional open water. Tolled Express Lanes Under Package B, a northbound and southbound tolled express lane would be constructed from SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2), SH 60 to E-470 (B-H3), and E-470 to US 36 (B-H4), except between Harmony Road and SH 60 where two tolled express lanes would be added in each direction. The construction of tolled express lanes would affect 20.77 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open water. The majority of impacts associated with this component would be associated with construction activities requiring clearing, grading, or vegetation removal adjacent to and in the floodplains of perennial waterways. Impacts are primarily anticipated to occur along Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Little Dry Creek, Little Thompson River, South Platte River, and St. Vrain Creek. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent wetland communities with associated riparian buffers. • Wetlands 3.8-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Bus Rapid Transit Package B includes the addition of BRT from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and to DIA. BRT would operate on existing roadways or share the tolled express lanes and would not result in direct or indirect impacts on existing wetland resources; however, installation of BRT stations would impact 0.52 acre of emergent wetland. The proposed BRT project activity would have direct impacts to wetlands within the alternative footprint as a result of fill placement caused by construction of BRT stations. Impacts for this component would be associated with two minor, stand-alone depressional areas. Wetland types that would be impacted are palustrine emergent wetland communities. 3.8.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Construction of the Preferred Alternative, which combines elements of both Package A and Package B, would result in direct impacts totaling 15.31 acres of wetlands and 2.87 acres of jurisdictional open waters. Table 3.8-4 summarizes impacts by design components and component impacts are described below. Table 3.8-4 Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Jurisdictional Open Waters from Preferred Alternative Components Jurisdictional PEM PSS Totals Preferred Alternative Open Waters* (acres) (acres) (acres) • (acres) Commuter Rail 1.82 1.69 1.42 4.93 l-25 Highway Improvements 9.05 2.75 1.45 13.25 1-25 Express Bus 0 0 0 0 US 85 Commuter Bus 0 0 0 0 Preferred Alternative Totals: 10.87 4.44 2.87 18.18 PEM....Palustrine emergent wetland PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland *For the purpose of this document,jurisdictional open waters are defined as perennial and intermittent waterways,or bodies of water including irrigation canals, ponds, lakes,and reservoirs. Commuter Rail The Preferred Alternative includes the construction of a commuter rail line from Fort Collins to Longmont, continuing from Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Corridor. The commuter rail will operate as a single track rail line with segments of passing track where feasible. The commuter rail component would have direct impacts to wetlands and other waters within the Preferred Alternative footprint as a result of fill placement caused by construction of railway components, such as track installation and alignment, maintenance facilities, and station locations. Similar to Package A, the majority of impacts for this component would occur along the Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Little Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek. Commuter rail and its associated stations would affect 4.93 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open waters. • Wetlands 3.8-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 1-25 Highway Improvements The Preferred Alternative includes buffer-separated tolled express lanes in each direction of 1-25. In addition, one additional general purpose lane would be added in each direction of 1-25 from SH 14 to SH 66, and 13 existing interchanges would be reconstructed/upgraded. These improvements would impact 13.25 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open waters. Impacts would occur as a result of construction activities requiring clearing, grading, or vegetation removal adjacent to and in the floodplains of perennial waterways. Impacts are primarily anticipated to occur along Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Little Dry Creek, Little Thompson River, South Platte River, and St. Vrain Creek. 1-25 Express Bus The Preferred Alternative would add express bus service with 13 stations along 1-25, US 34 and Harmony Road. 1-25 express bus service would use the proposed tolled express lanes included in the highway improvements and would not result in any additional impacts on existing wetlands and jurisdictional open waters. US 85 Commuter Bus The Preferred Alternative would add commuter bus service and 8 stations along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver. The commuter bus lines would operate on existing roadways and would have no direct or indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open waters. Similarly, the stations would be located immediately adjacent to the roadway and would have no direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or jurisdictional open waters. • 3.8.2.5 INDIRECT IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL PACKAGES Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would cause indirect effects to wetlands located within and adjacent to areas of construction. The following indirect effects are common to build components for general purpose lanes, commuter rail, commuter rail stations, commuter bus, tolled express lanes, BRT stations, and maintenance facilities. Most indirect effects would result from the increase in impervious surfaces caused by additional lanes or added road shoulders. The greater area of impervious surfaces would be expected to increase roadway and new bus/train station runoff, surface flows in adjacent streams, erosion, and the creation of channels in wetlands that were previously free of channelization. New flows could contain pollutants associated with roadway runoff. Sediment from winter sanding operations, especially with additional roadway lanes, would likely accumulate in wetlands and drainages. De-icers, such as magnesium chloride, petroleum products, and other chemicals, would likely degrade water quality, thus impacting wetland plants and wildlife. Additional sediment and erosion would be expected during and after construction until exposed fill and cut slopes could be successfully re-vegetated. Other indirect wetland effects include the decrease or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway/rail corridor and wetlands adjacent to other aquatic sites. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes as well as provide habitat for wildlife. Because proposed roadway and/or rail alignments primarily follow existing lines, many wetlands currently receive indirect effects from general activity and maintenance practices. • However, the magnitude of indirect effects would increase with increased area of roadway and rail corridors. Wetlands 3.8-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Indirect impacts resulting from project induced growth, transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1.5.2 Land Use and Zoning Environmental Consequences of this Final EIS. 3.8.2.6 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES Functions and values of wetlands located within the North 1-25 project area include wildlife habitat and travel corridors, production of export/food chain support, sediment/nutrient removal and retention, streambank stabilization, flood flow attenuation and storage, water quality improvement, ground water discharge/recharge, and recreation/education potential. Wetland functions are addressed in detail within the North 1-25 Wetland and Waters of the U.S. Technical Report (Jacobs, 2008d). In general, loss of functions in wetlands would be greater for wetlands occurring along perennial streams and established water bodies in comparison to wetlands occurring along roadside ditches, due to perennial and established water bodies containing more naturally occurring conditions. Wetland locations with higher functions and values are located along the banks and within floodplains of perennial waterways such as the Cache la Poudre River, Little Thompson River, Big Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek. The majority of these high value wetlands are located adjacent to 1-25 and would be impacted with package elements that require the widening of 1-25. 3.8.2.7 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS • Several federal, state, and local regulations can apply to wetlands. Agencies having jurisdiction over wetlands include the USACE, the CDOW, and the USFWS. Wetland determinations are subject to verification and approval by agencies. Wetland regulatory decisions and permitting determinations can only be made by the regulatory agencies. The USAGE regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into wetlands and jurisdictional open water through Section 404 of the CWA as amended in 1977. If a proposed project involves temporary or permanent filling of wetlands or other water bodies, which can include intermittent drainages, a USACE Section 404 permit may be required. The USACE makes the final determination as to whether the area meets the definition of a jurisdictional wetland and whether the wetland is "isolated" from or"adjacent" to other water bodies. The USACE and EPA have amended their permit regulations defining discharges of dredged material and fill material (58 FR 45008, August 25, 1993). The regulations now include excavations of wetlands where incidental discharge occurs. The USACE has established two types of permit programs under Section 404 of the CWA which apply to wetland fill proposals — nationwide permit or individual permit (IP)— in accordance with the nature of the proposed fill activity and the amount of impact. The NEPA/404 merger process shall be required when a project is expected to be processed using an EIS and an IP, which is the case with this project. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required in conjunction with an Individual 404 Permit (dredge and fill permit) for any transportation construction project or maintenance activity where work occurs below the ordinary high-water line or adjacent to wetlands. The • Wetlands 3.8.12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 401 Certification must be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. If a 404 Nationwide or General Permit is issued for the project, a 401 Certification is not required. A Senate Bill (SB)40 Certification would be required by CDOW for the crossing of streams or adjacent streambanks to avoid adverse effects to waterways, streambanks, or associated tributaries. This legislation is designed to protect fishing waters and to recognize the importance of the entire stream ecosystem, including wetland and riparian areas. As required by SB 40, an SB 40 wildlife certification application would be submitted to CDOW prior to 60 days before construction. Wetlands occurring on private land are subject to the same federal and state jurisdictional authorities as those within public land. 3.8.3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional open waters will be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible during preliminary and final design through the use of established and approved best management practices (BMPs). During this conceptual design phase, roadway improvements, rail alignments, and retaining walls were located to reduce fill in wetlands where practicable. Appendix B of the Technical Memorandum Addendum: Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. (Jacobs, 2011d) includes detailed information on avoidance and minimization measures that have been incorporated into the project throughout the EIS • process, including median designs incorporated into the highway components that resulted in a smaller impact footprint, and the use of single tracking for the commuter rail component of the Preferred Alternative. During construction, BMPs will be used to avoid indirect construction impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Material and equipment will be stored outside of wetland areas and drainages that could carry toxic materials into wetlands. Construction fencing will be used to mark wetland boundaries and sensitive habitats during construction. EPA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines require that impacts to wetlands be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable. 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures Per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. must be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. Although the Act requires compensatory mitigation only for jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, it is FHWA and CDOT policy to mitigate all wetlands impacts (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. On June 9, 2008, USAGE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new Mitigation Rule, which replaced all previous USACE mitigation guidance and established a preference for a watershed-based mitigation approach, which requires measurable and enforceable standards of performance to strengthen documentation of mitigation success. Acceptance of mitigation bank credit as compensation for impacts depends on the banks' • ability to replace the impacted wetland functions and agreement from regulatory agencies, primarily the Omaha District of the USAGE and EPA. Wetlands 3.8-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • There are three wetland mitigation banks in the North 1-25 EIS Regional study area that could serve the project. They are Mile High Wetland Mitigation Bank, Middle South Platte River Wetland Bank, and the Riverdale Wetland Mitigation Bank. Impacts south of SH 66 are within these banks' primary service areas and can provide mitigation credit at a 1:1 ratio. Project impacts north of SH 66 are generally within the secondary service area and would require mitigation credit at a higher ratio. CDOT and FHWA are working with the Omaha District of the USACE and EPA to determine how impacts within the project area watersheds can be best mitigated. Currently proposed mitigation will consist of fee arrangements for off-site wetland creation or restoration, and the purchase of wetland credits at USACE-approved mitigation banks. All impacted wetlands and jurisdictional open waters would be mitigated in accordance with the USACE mitigation policies, and the conditions of the USACE Section 404 Permit. All mitigation plans would be developed in coordination with the USACE and other appropriate agencies during the Section 404 permitting process. In addition, all mitigation for the wetlands as a result of the North 1-25 project would be done in accordance with CDOT and FHWA (23 CFR 777). • • Wetlands 3.8-14 • N oRrx I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.9 Floodplains al Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.9 FLOODPLAINS The regional study area for the proposed action includes many major and minor drainage crossings in six watersheds to the What's in Section 3.9? South Platte River. These watersheds (from 3.9 Floodplains north to south) include the Cache la Poudre 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework River, Big Thompson River, South Platte 3.9.2 Affected Environment River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and 3.9.2.1 Cache la Poudre Watershed Clear Creek (see Figure 3.9-1 in 3.9.2.2 Big Thompson Watershed Section 3.9.2). This section summarizes 3.9.2.3 South Platte Watershed floodplain resources and evaluations 3.9.2.4 St. Vrain Watershed presented in the Water Quality and 3.9.2.5 Big Dry Creek Watershed Floodplains Technical Report(FHU, 2008c), 3.9.2.6 Clear Creek Watershed and Addendum (FHU, 2011b), which should 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences be referred to for additional information, 3.9.3.1 No-Action Alternative details, and references. 3.9.3.2 Package A 3.9.3.3 Package B 3.9.1 Regulatory Framework 3.9.3.4 Preferred Alternative Various governmental policies guide the 3.9.4 Mitigation 4. Package Mea A s actions for construction in or near 3.9.4.1 floodplains. These include: 3.9.4.2 Package B • 3.9.4.3 Preferred Alternative ► Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, which requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, long-term and short-term adverse impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and to avoid floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. ► FHWA 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, which provides guidelines for floodplain and construction interaction. ► U.S. DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, which prescribes policies and procedures for ensuring that proper consideration is given to the avoidance and mitigation of adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs, and budget requests. ► FEMA policy, which is administered in the regional study area by Denver, Boulder, Adams, Weld, and Larimer counties, along with most cities and towns, which are responsible for regulating development in FEMA-designated floodplains. ► Additional floodplain and drainage design policies required to be followed are outlined in the CDOT Drainage Design Manual(CDOT, 2004b), and the CDOT Erosion Control and Storm water Quality Guide (CDOT, 2002b). An inspection of current FEMA flood insurance rate maps was completed for the regional study area. All major drainageways are in FEMA zones AE, A, or X, which define boundaries of floodplains by varying degrees of detail. Smaller drainages are not defined by FEMA. Each floodplain zone and a list of major drainages in each specific zone is described below. • Floodplains 3.9-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Zone AE. Zone AE is part of the FEMA 100-year flood hazard area where base flood elevations have been determined. Zone AE floodplain areas in the regional study area include Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River at the BNSF Railway, Boxelder Creek Overflows, Clear Creek, Grange Hall Creek, South Fork to Grange Hall Creek, and Tanglewood Creek. AE Zone areas that also have a floodway delineated are Big Dry Creek, Big Thompson River at the BNSF railway, Grange Hall Creek, South Fork to Grange Hall Creek, and Tanglewood Creek. The new Cache la Poudre and Boxelder Creek Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) has a delineated floodway. A floodway is an area of the floodplain that should be reserved (kept free of obstructions) to allow floodwaters to move downstream. Zone A. Zone A is part of the FEMA 100-year flood hazard area where base flood elevations have not been determined but a shaded, generalized floodplain is shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Zone A areas in the regional study area include Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, McKay Lake Drainageway, Mustang Run, Niver Creek, Quail Creek, Sack Creek South, St. Vrain Creek, Shay Ditch, and the South Fork of Preble Creek. US 85 Zone A areas include Second and Third creeks. FEMA's April 1995 publication, Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas, states that although base flood elevations are not shown in Zone A areas, the community is still responsible for ensuring that new developments in these areas are constructed using methods that will minimize flood damage (FEMA, 1995). This often requires obtaining or calculating base (100 year) flood elevations at the development site. Zone X. Zone X is part of the FEMA 500-year flood area, 100-year flood area with average depths of less than 1 foot, or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Zone X areas in the • regional study area include an unnamed tributary to Grange Hall Creek. 3.9.2 Affected Environment The following sections address flood history, floodplains, drainage, and floodplain functions in the six watersheds. Figure 3.9-1 delineates the watersheds within the regional study area. 3.9.2.1 CACHE LA POUDRE WATERSHED The Cache la Poudre River has experienced major flooding seven times since 1844. The most damage was caused by the 1904 flood. The 100-year flood width is about 1,300 feet near 1-25. The Boxelder Creek and Cache la Poudre River floodplains are complicated and interconnected in the 1-25 area. Flooding occurs in the 1-25 right-of-way at Boxelder Creek, the Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Swede Lake Outlet, and several minor crossings. Spring Creek overtops the BNSF railway in Fort Collins where the proposed commuter rail route would cross. The Spring Creek floodplain at the BNSF railway has a width of 2,000 feet. The Cache la Poudre Bridge at 1-25 is undersized, causing 33 percent of the 100-year flow to split and pass south toward Harmony Road. While portions of the Cache la Poudre drainage have been recently remapped, the mapping is based on several separate hydraulic models in the split flow area that are not interconnected to establish water surface profiles with a balanced hydraulic model output. Consequently, CDOT and the local agencies acknowledge that reliance on the existing hydraulic models and floodplain mapping in order for each jurisdiction to properly size new hydraulic structures for this complicated spit flow drainage • area is not in the best interest of all the jurisdictions involved. Floodplains 3.9.2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.9-1 Watershed Boundaries LEGEND L I'' Regional Study Area o Cities 8 Towns in Regional Study Area 1 i -- °- ^/ Study Corridors .•i wettiegtke '%., 1l �� . •- 85 Highways �� \/ Arterial Roads 287 I \-- de City Boundaries t 1 F' - CACHE LA POUDRE '�''e ; r tit ' WATERSHED :-• •Fort•Collins. \ • , km 14 el iTl/`I iI 21: ■�I tM -r-` ac. ri, I r 11 I .t •. I_ �r I'inrk-en. ---�-_. :dl�'1. y„�j x b t,1 Y l;f! 287k f • i , ` __L_..r. I L Wu -bal ' • . .tice ne udre Hive i cache la Po -- r----•--_ ,S IL i ( Greeley t—_ 3414—N.....: i- ,_.i; is ry. I • Loveland &ardent:I 34 I- ' " BIG THOMPSON - ` E'•ai ;1. 1 WATERSHED t r pson /• an Rai, .fA".f{(•QW Than 60 jet 85 ,. v ' LiPerthaud a.a>_ 0.4ill�krr� ' %. I 1. II I SOUTH PLA17E i j • cfm WATERSHED i I J i Mara . o / 2 65 • ii Longmont • c , ` m' I a• --�� - I,-, t ST. VRAIN Vt,,,,,,;.S GI I N �•� WATERSHED o F I , :7 / r I_ �'i . a ;taca:r. at Lupo.. I 2 I /_n /: o ()unbar*()unbar* BIG I _,,F DRY CREEK j ;� ., WATERSHEDS / pp ��'attrrdxmp r /Boulder 't I de' / - 91- tatayvta 14‘41 / •` li)J:SVIIiC • _.. i4 iultl up 1 7 f •---1:4\ .\ �'. Castle<c �l►... / ifoomtad ° + ties• • 1 ;-_ / • ,� 287 ' o .�. . .,, . \-{ CEEARCREEK i f ‘5,� - WATERSHE �� / gapeelr ; �� aaaa. gear Denver,—:--x. 70 ! 21' 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 mil t I I Miles North.---\---k, `1.- \_ \ r\i/ _ _,_ _ _ Floodplains 3.9-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • However, the master plan for the City of Fort Collins is to keep this split flow intact, since the entire 100-year flow cannot pass into the main channel without exceeding FEMA's allowable rise. Fort Collins has future plans to raise Harmony Road and install a culvert or bridge to pass these overflows. South of Harmony Road, the overflows eventually spill east over 1-25 and return to the Cache la Poudre River. Other physical limitations included a large bridge span, sedimentation problems, and regulatory limitations for no rise in the water surface west of 1-25. Boxelder Creek improvements include two separate projects that are being considered to better convey Boxelder Creek flows and control much of the existing flooding. The Boxelder Creek Regional Alliance proposes to build a new Boxelder Creek conveyance channel east of 1-25. The second plan, which may occur later, is being sponsored by Fort Collins. It would direct Boxelder flows along the west side of 1-25. Even though the Alliance improvements would occur first, the two projects are complimentary. The conveyance channel to be built as part of the Alliance project is also needed to collect and convey localized stormwaters from the areas north of Timnath. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture, recreation, and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses include conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.2 BIG THOMPSON WATERSHED The Big Thompson River has experienced major flooding eight times since 1864. The worst flooding occurred in 1976 when a cloudburst caused extensive flooding and took 139 lives. • At 1-25, Big Thompson River has a 3,100-foot wide floodplain and Little Thompson River has a 700-foot wide floodplain. The Little Thompson frontage road bridge on the east side of 1-25 is a steel-truss bridge, which was built in 1938. Along the BNSF railway corridor, there is a crossing of Big Thompson River where a 3,600-foot wide floodplain exists and one at Little Thompson River where an 800-foot wide floodplain exists. Flooding occurs at eight tributary crossings in this watershed. An un-named tributary to Big Thompson River crosses under US 34 on the east side of 1-25. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.3 SOUTH PLATTE WATERSHED Second and Third creeks have had five recorded floods since 1948. During these floods, most damage was limited to crops and livestock. A severe flood during 1984 resulted in one death. US 85 is overtopped by Second Creek at 136th Avenue, and by Third Creek at 144th Avenue. Floodplains for these two drainages are interconnected and have a combined 6,800-foot width at US 85. Both areas are in FEMA Zone A. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. • Floodplains 3.9.4 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.9.2.4 ST.VRAIN WATERSHED St. Vrain Creek has experienced major flooding 10 times since 1864. The worst flooding occurred in 1941 when a cloudburst and snowmelt combination caused extensive flooding. The 100-year flood width is about 3,700 feet near 1-25 and 7,000 feet wide where it crosses the commuter rail corridor along SH 119. 1-25 flooding also occurs at seven tributary crossings in this watershed. St. Vrain Creek riprap channel drops were built near the east and west right- of-way lines of 1-25 to improve the stream's conveyance. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has concerns that these drops are too steep and fish migration is impaired. A total of 7,000 feet of SH 119 is overtopped by the combined flooding from the St. Vrain Creek and Idaho Creek. Existing structures are absent adjacent to SH 119 where the proposed commuter rail route would cross these drainages. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for recreation and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.5 BIG DRY CREEK WATERSHED Big Dry Creek has few records of flooding due to its numerous reservoirs and recent agricultural past. The 100-year flood width is about 1,500 feet near 1-25 and 574 feet wide near the commuter rail corridor. • The Big Dry Creek crossing at 1-25 is marginally adequate for passing stormwaters. Flooding occurs at the tributaries at Little Dry Creek and the Tributary to Little Dry Creek, McKay Lake Drainageway, Mustang Run, South Fork Preble Creek, Sack Creek South, Shay Ditch, and Tanglewood Creek. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for recreation and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. 3.9.2.6 CLEAR CREEK WATERSHED Clear Creek has experienced major flooding 12 times since 1864. The worst flooding occurred in 1965 when a cloudburst and snowmelt combination caused extensive damage. The 100- year flood width is about 3,700 feet near 1-25. 1-25 is not overtopped by Clear Creek. Tributary crossings at Niver Creek and Niver Creek Tributary L have flooding within the 1-25 right-of- way. According to CDPHE, the floodplain's primary functions are for agriculture and warm-water aquatic life. Additional uses are for conveyance of stormwater, riparian habitat, and water quality maintenance. • Floodplains 3.9-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the consequences of the No-Action Alternative and three build packages with regard to floodplains. Specific floodplain impacts are identified and mitigation measures to address adverse impacts are described. Additional measures to mitigate impacts associated with bridge construction and roadway fill encroachment on flood fringe areas are discussed in Section 3.9.4. None of the crossings would have a significant encroachment on the floodplain. A significant encroachment is defined by FHWA as a transportation encroachment, and any direct support of a likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following construction or flood related impacts: ► A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route. ► A significant risk. ► A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 3.9.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would impact floodplains in areas where currently planned roadway improvements are planned. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.9.2, would continue. Probable improvements in floodplain areas are shown on Figure 3.9-2. • In summary, probable No-Action Alternative improvements in floodplain areas would include: ► SH 1 to SH 14 improvements: rehabilitation of one drainage structure. ► SH 14 to SH 60 improvements: rehabilitation of three drainage structures. ► SH 60 to E-470 improvements: rehabilitation of two drainage structures. ► E-470 to US 36 no drainage improvements are planned. 3.9.3.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the consequences to floodplains of each component of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative floodplain impacts. Highway Components Package A highway components would impact floodplains. Most drainage crossings are too small to pass the required flows under 1-25 and would need to be replaced. In areas where the structures are sufficient to pass the required flows, the increased width of 1-25 would necessitate their being lengthened. The specific components that would result in the greatest encroachment on floodplains are general purpose lane (GPL) improvements from SH 14 to SH 60 (4.9 acres) and GPL improvements from SH 60 to E-470 (4.6 acres). Any replacement or lengthening of a drainage structure, whether it is a bridge of culvert, would impact the • floodplain. Specific consequences related to each highway component are shown in Table 3.9-1 and on Figure 3.9-1. Floodplains 3.9.6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.9-2 Flood lain Impacts for the No-Action Alternative �' P P LEGEND IN J Regional Study Area 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area , �--^"" -�.,�_ ^, Study Corridors .....,.ii wel��a ��'•�•,\ 85 ^/ Highways L._..,♦\ p " Arterial Roads �``�" f J - Rehabilitate One \� ,/ \/ 1 Drainage Structure \� le City Boundaries j F ; CACHE LA POUDRE ""` >` ,., Location of Impacted Drainage Structure ort•G"ollins..-1 WATERSHED \ I-25 Highway Components , \--174 -. I __ 1 __r 2.57 — _ o-r, „ri, 0 din, -1 - — — jr Rehabllitate Three 1 287 (Drainage Structures �� wrrid:r, c I .itrr- t L392 ‘' Cache la Poudre River _ Gleely., 1 34 !ia I, . ' 1 Garden City j I-ovelandLL 34 BIG TNOMPSON rvdrI , WATERSHED i Is°" F e . I ' ar', r d pJ ndryai9t r Pive I v,. .-r, �� i 6t) f 0 Wilkey' 85 / 1.. i - / � 1 rGilurs I •S0UTH PLAFTE / cm WATERSHED / a ' I.bnglnunl m - l _ ST. VRAIN ' - ' . Rehabilitate Two I //' WATERSIED I Drainage Structures Ywo; • r;m C-O�• • 0 i:ID ll]311 to �,: BIG • 0FL: DRY CREEK i m I WATERSHED@� 1'. y.- - i Boulder { di i .- j r -' 0 I'ravec « ►iw r I 7 iinlisvlle - ISightcn ; \. E17• 1 I .3i % .''s " — ,!• acnrnlield co r 6 93 \ wr `kj� h2No Floodplain Impacts ' u .rtl 36r . . •Q`• GIP iR lrl.,rr ,r, .. / CEEARrCREEK ;/ WA iERSHE f • S •,. Derive,• IV 0 2 4 6 8 10 S 1 `,/ 0 ' Miles North '•-- Floodplains 3.9-7 e0 w as 4 _ c s • Fc t O a O a O N M yr ,aQ £ a co a o E E �) V a' a+ 0CD in CI) To s • .c m a • .a1 -° .. U 0 w e > w o 0 = C Q Q F- C O c c. c`0 a w m ai m a' E 15 0' E a c 2i6 c C Q :+ eT Q � r o �`o y V a) JN J co ea 0 tic Q z p as a� y `° o <° ai - - ° iii c iii 2 2. a c Q c � 2 > m 2 ' 2co li) Z Q w o w o mp mp - ` a= aocA aW aD U) t � L 0 w oa T O W E O W .-, W �O 'O = =-6 = 0 O O To d J T o >. ... '.' O 4 0 O O EE E '.. lJ E w — 0 � ' 'D 'D cr.- iz w E � ED) Ea) Ea F° wa ci a v)(Tn I° 0cn I- 0)) Izz ° lJ a ULL 0s og 00 00 � E c a) L Q 1,7 vw co co N LO O O O en r V V cD Ili .— .-- ri ca E CO m i,; C Q) e, cto co y o -Y C d 0 a% a c a ro 0 0 g as ear •O 4 a a>i ai y o M o_ v c1.63 E c c a >. a ari a F°s. C' V E E o fT. ti (1)o .C E J -I J C N y CO u, G — _ o c c E' = O ' w = Er ' N W O O A "" O O c a) Ecn x o x o x� COa) t t o 0. 0 o W .. W W ° p� O 0 ees vi 0 E Y 0— 0 - N e00 at- 0 I- c F- m y 0 0 co a' = o = `o = o `r a cL a) cc 0 a W O 0. m v) I- Co F- 0) I-- W a m O m i- 0 4.0 ev Cl) s- eJ Q C14 a) COO CO0 0 00 E V E M N N '-V Q � Ti Ti O - O O N N I—Il0 ^ �- p a to e0 - m r C C 0 Q 0 as 0 p - a w, `O Y Q c M :0 V G) 0 N m ., J co O N- S •a c w iii Cl) a m m .Q. ' c u) t_AN W E acio aci 0 os c 0 t > w ` a 12 a r- W H _ > � aEim ,, r, o F' = m o CU 3 a0 7a ~ ~ 0 — a — co Ql e N O >cLI I OW � N Ce Q WO m0 m0 ea f0 2 IiQ M 0 a _O E " E " g ° co ° a Jo 7 >, 7T ay a a) • o.. E Y cu _I ' � <0 24 Y Eu EE E E to m C9 .0 0 a a = d = 4. = w ' o 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 � +° a H 0 a U U) 0 v) 0 u) v) w a U O —J U 0 00 F.. . cc a CO O Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.9-3 Package A Floodplain Impacts LEGEND r' Regional Study Area l.J O Cities & Towns in Project Area /^\/ Highways .�-�( lw.trom, �`-�..�••�\815 /.\/ Arterial Roads • — 287 j - ---_ RehabilitateOne r -.e ^/ Component Corridors ��-_ �' Waal- Drainage Structure .` Ir City Boundaries C CACHE IA POUDRE race ,' i - WATERSHED g Location of Impacted Drainage Structure t UUnrt'.ollilc; N 1 / I-25 Highway Components Au p! 1t lie _ J Commuter Rail Components j �P * I * ,2 7 I jx - - �. rrrriult . La,m. ' 1 I Sewrarre I f - - ?Replace Four ° *47ji F ._i_ .I Drainage Structures . . .Ytiir;Jil ` 392 I ! I _� t'J_e; ' { Cache la Poadrr. Nrvrr ,�--- y " ()Tuley - 34 I * 1 �'.i , i * --Loveland , .� I _ 34 j i -L-'.,• t i' -BI THOMPSON L I i 1 I WATERSHED � to / I • �,tpun .� drsncri� J�It %I I so 85 / Q P�illkr„ �• i 111 �rr- Six Floodplains; ; * ; SOUTH PLAFTE %1 Impacted i 1 * WATERSIED � I fatten ;- s I Longmont * t . ,, ST. VRAIN * r i',,. - Replace Five WATERSHED i raste Of le I r 1 :Drainage Structures i / �*;� I , Five Floodplalns I . v ,, , i eded� Ily" _ Impacted - __ J - i 1 ' tacon r,.ri0i-fl, I / o ('><;nhartel BIG I // ° % * DRY CREE j i' ;WATERSflED5 t 76 t^, iiionyr, I j="../ I 7 c. Boulder • . __ * \' .. e� /Two Floodplalns T Impacted Along US-85 •N1 No Flo pacts odplain Im Y 93 silt �.0 • 0 % 4. 36 CLEAR CREEK 1 1 WAIERSHE e " 'i .I.�`, e i 0 2 4 6 8 10 f I ' 1 1 r 1 Miles North Itfrl _-0 , /Floodplains 3.9-9 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Specific consequences related to each Package A highway component would be as follows: ► Safety improvements involving floodplains from SH 1 to SH 14 would be limited to the No-Action Alternative improvements involving rehabilitation of one drainage structure. ► GPL improvements from SH 14 to SH 60 (plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60 widening would encroach on to three floodplains and would require the replacement of four major drainage structures. ► GPL improvements from SH 60 to E-470 widening would encroach on to four floodplains and would require the replacement of five major drainage structures. ► Structure upgrades from E-470 to US 36 would be limited to the No-Action Alternative, which would have no floodplain impacts. Boxelder Creek floodplains are mapped from the northern project limits to its confluence with the Cache la Poudre River. The creek runs parallel to 1-25 to the east for several miles before it crosses under 1-25. There are several overflow areas along 1-25 before the Boxelder crosses 1-25. There are five structures at these locations. These structures would either be replaced in kind, extended in kind, or a new larger structure would be needed. These improvements would have the following floodplain impacts: ► Improving the capacity of the drainage structures would decrease the amount of ponding east of 1-25 but could increase the chance of downstream flooding to the west of 1-25. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. • Boxelder Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 269, flowing from east to west. The current structure would be replaced in kind. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the new structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. The Cache Ia Poudre River crosses under 1-25 near mile post 266, flowing from west to east. The current bridge would be replaced with a wider one along the new alignment of 1-25 to match the new typical section. Determination of the replacement structure type would be made by CDOT, FEMA, and adjacent jurisdictions. These improvements would have the following impacts on the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the new structure and new structure location, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed by the new structure location. The Cache Ia Poudre River 100-year flows split just west of 1-25. The majority of the 100-year flow heads east to the existing 1-25 bridge, causing overtopping of the interstate. The • remaining flows pass to the south crossing Harmony Road before flooding 1-25 at the 1-25 and Kechter Road crossroads. There are no structures at this location currently. CDOT and the Floodplains 3.9-10 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. local agencies acknowledge that a comprehensive reevaluation at the time of final design would be necessary to determine the appropriate alignment and sizing of structures throughout this complicated split flow reach. Due to the level of design and information available at this time, the proposed options are based on current regulations and the master plan for the City of Fort Collins which plans to keep the split flow intact. Four concrete box culverts (CBCs)would be added to this area, one in each quadrant of the crossroads. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The floodplain limits would change with the new structures. I-25 should not be overtopped anymore and the flows would become more channelized. There could be an increase in downstream flooding due to the more concentrated flows. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the roadway would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands could be disturbed during construction. The Big Thompson River crosses under 1-25 near mile post 257, flowing from west to east. The current bridge would be replaced with a new wider bridge due to widening of 1-25. The proposed bridge will not be much longer than the existing bridge, but the profile of 1-25 was raised to provide the capacity needed to pass the 100-year flows. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the widening of the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. • ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the widening of the structure. The Little Thompson River crosses under 1-25 near mile post 250, flowing from west to east. The current bridge would be replaced with a new wider bridge and shifted to accommodate widening of 1-25 and a new alignment. These improvements would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be no or minimal changes to the floodplain. There may be local changes due to the widening and shifting of the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the widening and shifting of the structure. North Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 245, flowing from west to east. The existing CBC would be replaced in kind, but it would probably be extended due to the new alignment of the ramps and frontage road. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to extending the CBC, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. • Floodplains 3.9-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to extending the CBC. Little Dry Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 231, flowing from west to east. The existing 72-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) would be replaced with a larger structure. This improvement would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to replacing the CBC, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction. Transit Components Package A transit components would impact floodplains where crossings occur and where the commuter rail and commuter bus routes require widening that encroaches on to floodplains. The commuter rail route from Fort Collins to Longmont would cross six floodplains and the route from Longmont to North Metro would cross five floodplains. Commuter bus service along the US 85 queue jumps would impact two floodplains between Greeley and Denver. Commuter bus service to DIA would cross four floodplains, but would not impact any of them. None of the bus stations, bus and commuter rail maintenance facilities, rail stations, or • associated parking facilities would impact a floodplain. Spring Creek crosses under the BNSF railroad, the proposed alignment for the commuter rail, approximately 0.15 miles south of Prospect Road. The existing CBC is inadequate, but adding two 60-inch RCP would help pass the full 100-year flows. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The railroad is currently overtopped by the 100-year flows. Adding the pipes could alleviate this problem. However, there could be an increase in downstream flooding because the flows would be more concentrated through the pipes as opposed to spilling over the railroad. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. Fossil Creek crosses under the BNSF railroad five times between Fossil Creek Drive and south of Trilby Road. The floodplain has been mapped by the City of Fort Collins in this area. At these crossings, three of the structures would be replaced with larger structures, and two new structures would be added. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► At three of the five crossings, Fossil Creek overtops the railroad. The new structures could alleviate this problem. They could also reduce ponding on the upstream sides of the railroad. Increasing the capacity of the crossing structures could cause more flooding downstream however. Because Fossil Creek snakes back and forth around the railroad, more detailed study would be needed to determine the full changes to the floodplain. Channel improvements and downstream studies may be needed in the future. • Floodplains 3.9-12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Current mapping only shows wetlands at two locations. At both of these locations, the wetlands would be disturbed during construction. Dry Creek crosses under the BNSF railroad near the Loveland Plaza Mobile Home Park. The existing CBC is inadequate. This could be solved by adding several 96-inch RCP or replacing the CBC with a larger structure. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► A larger structure or the added pipes could decrease ponding upstream of the railroad but could increase the chance of flooding downstream of the railroad. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction. The Big Thompson River crosses under the BNSF railroad approximately 1/3 of a mile south of West 1st Street. The existing bridge is not overtopped and would be extended in kind. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to extending the existing bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. • ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and could possibly be destroyed due to the bridge extension. The Little Thompson River crosses under the BNSF railroad approximately 1/3 of a mile south of County Road 6c. The existing bridge is not overtopped and would be extended in kind. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to extending the existing bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and could possibly be destroyed due to the bridge extension. Spring Gulch crosses under the BNSF railroad just south of 17th Avenue. The new commuter rail would cross Spring Gulch again along SH 119. The existing pipe at the railroad is inadequate. A larger structure is needed to pass the 100-year flows. At the new crossing, a bridge is proposed as well. These improvements would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► A larger structure at the railroad crossing and an adequately sized structure at the new commuter rail crossing should maintain or improve the floodplains at these locations. There could be a chance of increased flooding between these two bridges in Longmont, but this area is only mapped to a Zone X level of detail currently. • ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. Floodplains 3.9-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The St. Vrain Creek would cross under the proposed commuter rail approximately 1.5 miles west of 1-25 along SH 119. The proposed bridge would be very wide because of the wide, shallow floodplain in this area. This improvement would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The new commuter rail bridge would be adjacent to the older SH 119 bridge. The SH 119 structure would have to be replaced to limit flooding at the new rail crossing. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the new bridge. Idaho Creek would cross under the proposed commuter rail approximately 0.66 miles west of 1-25 along SH 119. A wide bridge is proposed for this crossing as well, because the St. Vrain floodplain encompasses Idaho Creek. This improvement would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► Adding a bridge at the commuter rail crossing at the St. Vrain floodplain and at Idaho Creek could change the floodplain upstream of SH 119. The current wide shallow floodplain may split into two flows that join together again downstream of SH 119. More detailed study would be needed in the future to determine the full extent of the changes to the floodplain. There would probably not be an increase in the flooding downstream of the proposed commuter rail due to the new bridges. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. • Little Dry Creek would cross under the proposed commuter rail approximately 0.15 miles south of Weld County Road 8 and 0.8 miles east of 1-25. A new bridge is proposed at this crossing. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to the new structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the new bridge. Big Dry Creek crosses under the UPRR approximately 0.5 miles north of SH 7 and 2.33 miles east of 1-25. The current bridge is not overtopped and it is recommended that this structure be extended in kind. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to extending the existing structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation around the drainage structures would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the new bridge. • Floodplains 3.9-14 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Second Creek has floodplains with designation Zone A at the intersection of US 85 and East 136th Avenue. This is a location of a proposed queue jump for the commuter bus. Tapers and a shoulder would be added to northbound US 85 turn and to eastbound 136th Avenue. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The additional pavement could increase flows and cause some local changes to the floodplain limits. ► Vegetation would be disturbed and destroyed during construction. First Creek has floodplains with designation Zone A at the intersection of US 85 and East 104th Avenue. This is a location of a proposed queue jump for the commuter bus. Tapers and a shoulder would be added to southbound US 85 and to westbound 104th Avenue. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► The additional pavement could increase flows and cause some local changes to the floodplain limits. ► Vegetation would be disturbed and destroyed during construction. 3.9.3.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the consequences of each component of Package B and provides a • comparison with Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Highway Components Package B highway components would impact floodplains. Most of the drainage crossings are too small to pass the required flows under 1-25 and would need to be replaced. In areas where the structures are sufficient to pass the required flows, the increased width of 1-25 would necessitate their being lengthened. The specific component that would result in the greatest encroachment on floodplains includes the tolled express lanes from SH 14 to SH 60 (6.0 acres). Areas along the bus routes would not require new drainage structures. Any replacement or lengthening of a drainage structure, whether it is a bridge or a culvert, would impact the floodplain. Specific consequences related to each Package B highway component are shown on Figure 3.9-4 and would be as follows: ► Safety improvements involving floodplains from SH 1 to SH 14 would be limited to the No-Action Alternative, which includes the rehabilitation of one drainage structure. ► Tolled express lanes from SH 14 to SH 60 would encroach on to three floodplains and would require the replacement of four major drainage structures. ► Tolled express lanes from SH 60 to E-470 would involve widening that would encroach on to four floodplains and require the replacement of five major drainage structures. ► Tolled express lanes from E-470 to US 36 would involve widening that would encroach on to five floodplains and require the replacement of six major drainage structures. • Floodplain impacts to the floodplains of Boxelder Creek, the Cache la Poudre River, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, North Creek, St. Vrain Creek, and Little Dry Creek would be slightly greater than those for Package A due to the wider highway section. Floodplains 3.9-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.9-4 Package B Floodplain Impacts L LEGEND Regional Study Area O Cities & Towns in Project Area Iit-'-•.�,, �� Hi hwa s •ter• Wellington �'-�, �� Arterial Roads j, N �85 2875 j —— Rehabilitate One �� wComponent Corridors `�_ ® Drainage Structure t Ip City Boundaries % CACHE LA POUDRE L'"'' ' lei\ // Location of Impacted Drainage Structure •-Forl•Collins.- WATERSHED Y/� tnrru— FA I-25 Highway Components �tti� _-Y AA 16 4 f , ~ * 257 1 • 1 i in Idol 43 Y!h1.4�'ICC l 4-- _• Replacement of Four it1Drainage Structures L. Wir:L:a I — ■.m. • Lucene `:I 392 I Cache la roddre fl.rlr.- I .. _ - • I' I Greeley -_-I 34 . � . : ,-.._.s . , i ' 1-4, Garden City 4 it, i Lovelanrd 3 : -BIG THOMPSON ' -_-_ --Na '• - WATERSHED Thompson pee e : ;i S : Cafi,pINI 1_fire:c;. �Biv.fli�r t 60 j' O h'illiki 85 ; I. A i i I Ir.] SOUTH PLATTE Ill ��0 WATERSHED ! Mead * -� o i lattrnlle ^^ 1 f Longmont m ont .1 L m 4' ST. VRAIN ' --,,, ,,,b r.Replacement of Five / • WATERSHED v i Drainage Structures s — Firtrl�nH: i '— Niwot, .7 -- , ht.;rr<:,k I _a Difer_ ... _ - ,, . . .� r -Li;'Pr BIG Iirt lair'41 j .�- _�_ _ - — I - _ _" j '` i • DRY CREEK i • WATERSHEDS 76 Boulder �! .. I 1 r Lafawttc NW I L ' : ausville: • itm I,• / jasti4i • I ,— Et Gan L��J d - ,. R+► — --, Replacement of Six • I 4 1 j rrkru,gI&ri / Drainage Structures 36 287 >ti . _ _ _/ TAY �Kuntcrt /• CLEAR CREEK d C . WATERSHE ! '� ; / ! aek a .--4 f .ear : ''•ll s t1 . Denver. 70 i t o . �• rte.- I — .PrITI0 2 4 6 8 10 1i___r� _�_" .._ . -f �® _�� k _ 1i:z C II I ' 1 I I I Miles North ......... ' J) ; Ill Floodplains 3.9.16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. St. Vrain Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 242. The existing bridge would be replaced with a new wider bridge to match the widening of 1-25 in this area. This would have the following impacts to the floodplain: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There may be local changes due to the widening of the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the widening of the structure. The South Fork of Preble Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 229, flowing from west to east. The existing CBC would be replaced with a larger CBC. This would have the following floodplain impacts: ► A larger structure might eliminate some of the spreading of the floodplain upstream of 1-25. Flooding could be increased downstream of 1-25, however, due to the increased capacity of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. Mustang Run crosses under 1-25 near mile post 227, flowing from west to east. The existing structure is an 18-inch corrugated metal pipe that would be replaced with a CBC. This would • have the following floodplain impacts: ► A larger structure would probably reduce upstream ponding behind 1-25. Immediately downstream of the structure ponding could increase behind a levee at Bull Canal. It is unlikely that flooding would increase downstream of the Bull Canal levee. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands could be disturbed during construction. Shay Ditch crosses under 1-25 near mile post 227, flowing from west to east. The existing pipe would be replaced with a CBC. This would have the following floodplain impacts: ► Ponding upstream of 1-25 would probably be reduced, but there could be an increased chance of flooding downstream of 1-25. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands could be disturbed during construction. Big Dry Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 225, flowing from west to east. The existing bridge would be replaced in kind and extended to match the widening of 1-25. This would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to extending the bridge, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. • ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and destroyed due to the extension of the bridge. Floodplains 3.9-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Niver Creek crosses under 1-25 near mile post 219, flowing from west to east. The existing CBC would be replaced and could be extended. This would have the following floodplain impacts: ► There should be minimal or no changes to the floodplain limits. There could be local changes due to possibly extending the structure, but this should not affect flooding upstream or downstream of the structure. ► Natural vegetation surrounding the structure would be disturbed during construction. ► Surrounding wetlands would be disturbed during construction and possibly destroyed due to extending the CBC. Transit Components Package B transit components would not have a floodplain impact that would be in addition to that described under highway components. None of the bus routes, bus stations, bus maintenance facilities, or associated parking facilities would impact floodplains. Indirect Effects to Floodplains Improved structures at floodplain crossings can result in indirect effects to properties beyond the regional study area. Improved crossings convey floodwaters more efficiently because much of the original inadvertent detention caused by the highway embankment is removed. Greater flows pass through the new structure and are conveyed through downstream areas. These higher flows can cause increased flooding and potential damage to downstream • properties. It is CDOT's policy that new structures are to be sized to pass the upstream flows through the highway right-of-way. The design flows are to be based on the current level of development, and are not to assume that any inadvertent detention facilities will lower them. Inadvertent detention facilities can include railroad embankments, irrigation canals, and ponds, which might be removed in the future. 3.9.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.9-1 summarizes the consequences to floodplains of each component of Preferred Alternative and provides a comparison with Package A and Package B floodplain impacts. The Preferred Alternative highway and transit component are shown on Figure 3.9-5. Highway Components The Preferred Alternative highway components would impact floodplains. Most drainage crossings are too small to pass the required flows under 1-25 and would need to be replaced. In areas where the structures are sufficient to pass the required flows, the increased width of 1-25 would necessitate their being lengthened. Highway impacts to floodplains of Boxelder Creek, the Cache la Poudre River, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, North Creek and the Little Dry Creek would be • very similar to the impacts described for Package A. The impacts may be slightly greater due to a wider highway section. Floodplains 3.9.18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Floodplain impacts to the St. Vrain Creek, South Fork of Preble Creek, Mustang Run, Shay Ditch, Big Dry Creek, and Niver Creek would be very similar to the impacts described for Package B. The impacts may vary slightly due to the changes in the highway sections. Transit Components The Preferred Alternative transit components would impact floodplains where crossings occur and where the commuter rail and commuter bus routes require widening that encroaches on to floodplains. The commuter rail route from Fort Collins to Longmont would cross six floodplains and the route from Longmont to North Metro would cross five floodplains. Commuter bus service to DIA would cross four floodplains, but would not impact any of them. None of the bus stations, bus and commuter rail maintenance facilities, rail stations, or associated parking facilities would impact a floodplain. Floodplain impacts to Spring Creek, Fossil Creek, Dry Creek, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, Spring Gulch, St. Vrain Creek, Idaho Creek, Little Dry Creek, Big Dry Creek, Second Creek, and First Creek would be similar to the impacts described in Package A. Some areas will have less floodplain impacts than Package A due to commuter rail being reduced to a single track in the Preferred Alternative. • • Floodplains 3.9-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.9-5 Preferred Alternative Floodplain Impacts 111 LEGEND L I JI �Regional Study Area 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area .%-•"" ''-�. Wellington •••... `�• ^/ Highways V' •N'• N 85 \/ Arterial Roads 287 // J \ ^, Component Corridors City Boundaries ./..„.„.1--)) CACHE LA POUDRE F"" ' WATERSHED , ' Location of Impacted Drainage Structure I IQ•Gr llnis 1- N 14 1 257 r Highway: --- 0 ..;-r,nce Replace or Rehabilitate 13 Structures i *:7 i 392 Cache la Poutire River-_, t GfteI y 34 r • _... * lovelanrf .. �� 34 �� BIG THOMPSD i i s �L7 I WATERSH4 D � nIg omv,on �.�, i -J 60 '85 i Bevtl:u,a .� 9 Pdidikei / Commuter Rail. 1-I 6 10 Floodplains Impacted * SOUTH PLATTE 1 * ��m WATERSHED•! ill * A maidg / 0 / _.I 1 . . s6 N/i 1 Ip 1 LOIIUIIIrlfll l •`t * 0.,c. // St. VRAIN \rill,y a , / WATERSHED o I / Niwo; 87 9 7---- - 1 • I ---:0 G�lfaneila ;a_:i 'BIG fur lIil.'.c+� 119 I.- rill, R DRY CREEK / I ' . - ► - * WATERSAEDQ : 76 Boulder B _ Lixavette i ar,�tl e V1 t_ Aalti4 lbw Ij ( 7 • :a. "j, l7 al dill a �groose �` -tine!:;" 4111}.. Irk / Commuter Bus; '.�,,`' ` i fl�� * o 2 Floodplains Impacted v6 / 36 [287 .. *o CLEAR'CREEK / / f1 L_. WA�ERSHED I ) V�ea(Meek ' % - 1.. • s< Dent�cr.—�% 70 it el If 0 2 4 6 8 10 / ® ; f ' ' ' ' I Miles North ••1_. 1 l ( / 1 )1\ '%-.N.\1/4. 1 411 Floodplains 3.9-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures Impacts to floodplains would occur with bridge construction or where roadway fill would encroach onto the flood fringe areas. Mitigation measures that will be employed include: ► The 100-year FEMA design flows will be used for freeboard determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable. ► The 500-year design flows will be used to further assess the scour design and set the depths of piles or caissons. ► The design will consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA. ► Degradation, aggregation, and scour are to be determined. Adequate counter measures will be selected using criteria established by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 568 (TRB, 2006) ► The design will be such that minimal disruption to the ecosystem will occur. ► The design will consider costs for construction and maintenance. ► A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at joints will be considered. If possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged into a floodplain. ► The designs will comply with federal and state agencies. The designs will make every • consideration towards local agency requirements and will be consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs. Floodplain impacts would include increasing the sizes of bridges, culverts, and other drainage facilities in order to better convey floodwaters. In most cases, larger drainage structures would not disturb the existing low flow channel areas where riparian habitat is located. The overbanks adjacent to the low flow channels are generally expanded with the newer structures in order to pass the higher flows. Enlarged overbank areas are generally revegetated with a diverse planting in order to enhance the habitat. Upstream flood risks should decrease with an enlarged drainage structure. Downstream flood risks can increase due to the improved conveyance of the stormwaters. It is CDOT policy to size a drainage structure based on FEMA flows, to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado, and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, Sec.2.5.2 and 12.1.1). The standard flood for CDOT and FEMA is the 100-year flood. Impacts to downstream areas must be assessed at the time of preliminary and final design by using detailed hydraulic methods. All improvements are to follow the guidelines described in Section 3.9.1. 3.9.4.1 PACKAGE A Boxelder Creek floodplains east of I-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the • same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. Floodplains 3.9.21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands will be followed. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Boxelder Creek floodplains at 1-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. The Cache la Poudre floodplains at 1-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- 411 structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Cache la Poudre River split flow floodplains at 1-25 would be impacted. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands will be followed. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. • Floodplains 3.9.22 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. The Big Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at l-25.The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the mitigation approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Little Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. • ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. North Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Spring Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT • standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Floodplains 3.9-23 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Fossil Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, Section 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from • entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Big Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The Little Thompson River floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from • entering state waters. Floodplains 3.9-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Spring Gulch floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► CDOT policy, which is to obey the Natural Flow Rule of Colorado and to hold others to the same standard (CDOT Drainage Design Manual, 2004, sec. 2.5.2 and 12.1.1), will be followed. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Idaho Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- • structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Little Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Big Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at the commuter rail corridor. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from 411 entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. Floodplains 3.9-25 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Second Creek floodplains would be impacted at a commuter bus queue jump. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. First Creek floodplains would be impacted at a commuter bus queue jump. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. • 3.9.4.2 PACKAGE B Floodplain impacts and mitigation measures to the floodplains of Boxelder Creek, the Cache la Poudre River, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, North Creek, and Little Dry Creek would be slightly greater than those for Package A because of the wider highway section. The St. Vrain River floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. The South Fork of Preble Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► The flows released downstream of 1-25 will not be more than the present 100-year flows. Downstream capacity should be designed for the present 100-year flow conditions • according to CDOT. Floodplains 3.9-26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Mustang Run floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Shay Ditch floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: • ► The flows released downstream of 1-25 will not be more than the present 100-year flows. Downstream capacity should be designed for the present 100-year flow conditions according to CDOT. ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► If wetlands are disturbed, wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Big Dry Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. • ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. Floodplains 3.9-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Niver Creek floodplains would be impacted at 1-25. The following measures will be taken to mitigate floodplain impacts to the extent practicable: ► Sediment and erosion will be controlled by implementing appropriate structural and non- structural BMPs during each phase of construction to avoid potential pollutants from entering state waters. ► Disturbed land will be seeded and re-vegetated in accordance with current CDOT standards and specifications. ► Wetland mitigation will follow the approach described in Section 3.8 Wetlands. ► SB 40 requirements will be met for applicable areas. 3.9.4.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Floodplain mitigation measures due to impacts from highway improvements to the floodplains of Boxelder Creek, the Cache la Poudre River, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, North Creek, and Little Dry Creek would be similar to those described for Package A Floodplain mitigation measures due to impacts from transit improvements to the floodplains of Spring Creek, Fossil Creek, Dry Creek, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, Spring Gulch, Idaho Creek, the St. Vrain River, Little Dry Creek, Big Dry Creek, First Creek, and Second Creek would be similar to those described in Package A. Floodplain mitigation measured due to impacts from highway improvements to the floodplains of the St. Vrain River, the South Fork of Preble Creek, Mustang Run, Shay Ditch, Big Dry • Creek, and Niver Creek would be similar to those described in Package B. CDOT and the local agencies acknowledge that a comprehensive basin hydraulic model reanalysis and appropriate map revisions would be necessary to determine the appropriate sizing of various hydraulic structures throughout the complicated split flow reach of the Cache la Poudre River at the 1-25 crossing. Consequently, an appropriate mitigation measure would be consideration for a comprehensive hydraulic model analysis to support the associated map revisions and appropriate sizing of hydraulic structures across 1-25 with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. • Floodplains 3.9.28 • N oizm I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 10 Vegetation • 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.10 VEGETATION 3.10.1 Affected Environment What's in Section 3.10? The North 1-25 regional study area is within the High Plains Ecoregion with the western 3.10 Vegetation 3.10.1 Affected Environment portion located in the Front Range Fans 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences sub-ecoregion and the eastern portion in 3.10.2.1 No-Action Alternative the Flat to Rolling Plains and Rolling Sand 3.10.2.2 Package A Plains sub-ecoregions (USGS, 2006). 3.10.2.3 Package B 3.10.2.4 Preferred Alternative The High Plains Ecoregion is characterized 3.10.2.5 Summary of Direct Impacts as a dry grassland, receiving 12 to 20 3.10.2.6 Impacts from Induced Growth inches of annual precipitation. Smooth, 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures irregular plains are the dominant characteristic of the High Plains Ecoregion, with a high percentage of land cover converted to cropland. The dominant native vegetation within the ecoregion are various grasses, such as blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Biological resource data for the regional study area were collected from maps, databases, GIS data, aerial photography, publications (Weber, 2001), and agency information. This information was used to provide context of the resource in the region and to assist in assessing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in the project area. Field studies were conducted in the project • area and provide the basis for assessing common species present. Upland plant species common to the regional study area are listed in Table 3.10-1. Due to the geographical size of the regional study area and the scope of the vegetation assessments, impacts to general vegetation communities are described. Impact acreages were calculated using existing CDOT right-of-way construction footprints, and evaluation of aerial photography. The regional study area consists primarily of urban, agricultural, and developed habitats. Native, undisturbed habitats in the regional study area are primarily fragmented areas of remnant native prairie and riparian corridors, which typically have an abundance of non-native plant species. There are also areas classified as ponderosa pine forests (Pinus ponderosa), xeric shrublands, and mountain grasslands. The distribution of vegetation communities in the regional study area is presented in Table 3.10-2. Most of the regional study area consists of agricultural land (irrigated or dryland) and urban and developed areas. Affected by rapid development, drought, and weed infestations, vegetation is dominated by non-native plants (noxious weeds are discussed in Section 3.11). Weedy kochia (Bessie scoparia) and various species of native and non-native grasses such as barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and western wheatgrass are the dominant species of roadsides. Many fields along project alignments appear to be fallow and dominated by kochia. Landscaped vegetation comprised of bluegrass lawns with ornamental trees and shrubs is present in many residential and business areas. • Vegetation 3.10.1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.10-1 Common Plant Species of the North I-25 Regional Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-native GRASSES AND GRASS-LIKES Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides Native Barnyard grass Echinochloa crus-galli Non-native Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Native Bluegrass Poa pratensis Non-native Buffalograss Bouteloua dactyloides Native Cattail Typha angustifolia, T. latifolia Native Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum Non-native Needle and thread grass Hesperostipa comata Native Redtop Agrostis gigantea Non-native Rush Juncus sp. Native Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Native Sedge Carex sp. Native Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Native Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus Native Smooth brome Bromus inermis Native Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii Native Feather fingergrass Chloris virgata Non-native FORBS (BROAD-LEAVED FLOWERING PLANTS) • Blueflax Linum perenne Native Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Non-native Clover Trifolium sp. Native Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Non-native Common sunflower Helianthus annuus Native Curly dock Rumex crispus Non-native Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Non-native Golden aster Heterotheca sp. Native Kochia(burningbush) Bassia scoparia Non-native Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Non-native Prostrate pigweed Amaranthus albus Non-native Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Non-native Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Non-native Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Non-native Little sunflower Helianthus pumilus Native Yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis Non-native SHRUBS Sandbar willow Salix exigua Native Tamarisk Tamarix sp. Non-native TREES Chinese elm Litmus pumila Non-native Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides subsp. monilifera Native • Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Non-native Source:Nomenclature follows USDA Plants database,accessed at http://plants.usda.gov. Vegetation 3.10.2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.10-2 Distribution of Vegetation Types County Primary Upland Vegetation Types Primary Riparian Areas Adams Urban Clear Creek Broomfield Urban, some irrigated and dryland agriculture None Mostly urban, irrigated agriculture, and native Boulder prairie; ponderosa pine, foothills and mountain None grassland Denver Urban South Platte River Larimer Urban, some irrigated and dryland agriculture Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River Weld Urban, some irrigated and dryland agriculture Big Thompson River, South Platte River, St. Vrain Creek Narrow bands of riparian vegetation are present along many streams and some irrigation canals. Wetlands also occur in many areas and the vegetation that exists in these areas is described in further detail in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Common trees along fence lines and upper riparian areas are native plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) as well as non-native Chinese elm (Ulmus pumila) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Wetland species typically include native sandbar willow (Salix exigua), cattail (Typha sp.), sedges (Carex sp.), and rushes (Juncus sp.), as well as non-native redtop (Agrostis stolonifera), and curly dock • (Rumex crispus). The following descriptions of vegetation types were primarily derived from the Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) data (CDOW, 2001), combined with field observations. Urban. These areas are characterized by high density commercial or high density residential development. Urban environments generally lack natural vegetative habitats, and vegetation present in these areas is comprised of landscaped and cultivated plants. Dryland/Irrigated Agriculture. These areas are characterized by row crops, irrigated pasture and hay fields, and dry farm crops. Native Prairie. Prairie habitat is dominated by grasses and forbs such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), buffalograss, sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), blueflax (Linum perenne), and golden aster (Heterotheca sp.). Prairie habitat in eastern Colorado is a valuable resource for wildlife, and is home to several endangered species of plants and animals (see Section 3.12 Wildlife and Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species for further discussion). Two such endangered plant species are the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana subsp. coloradensis) and Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). Much of this habitat has been converted to agricultural land or has been converted to residential and commercial areas. Native prairie habitat within the regional study area is fragmented and sparse. • Vegetation 3.10.3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Ponderosa Pine. Stands of Ponderosa pine are found along the western edge of the regional study area, and provide various important ecological functions. Ponderosa pines are a valuable food resource to a variety of animals and provide shelter. Grasses like slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), and other wildflower species cover the floor of these forests. Mountain Grassland. Mountain grasslands exist along the western edge of the regional study area along the Front Range and are dominated by native grasses such as western wheatgrass and blue grama. Mountain grasslands provide important habitat for grazing and serve as movement corridors for mountain wildlife. Riparian Woodland. Riparian habitats are those areas associated with streams and other water bodies that have distinctly different vegetation due to the presence of surface water or groundwater. Riparian habitat supports a higher diversity of resident wildlife than any other habitat in the Front Range and many of the species that occur exclusively inhabit wetlands or riparian environments. Riparian habitats provide various important ecological functions for resident and migratory wildlife species, such as nesting opportunities and travel corridors for populations of breeding and migratory avian species. Riparian corridors also link wildlife populations in areas of high quality habitat, allowing movement through the urban environment. Amphibians and many reptile species occur most frequently in riparian habitats and corridors as well. Representative species include plains cottonwood, sandbar willow, cattail, and various rushes and sedges. 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences • This section addresses vegetation communities along North 1-25 that could be affected by the No-Action Alternative or build packages. Native vegetation and riparian habitat along streambanks are protected under conditions of the Senate Bill (SB)40 permit, regulated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Special concern species that are listed as federally threatened and endangered are regulated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are documented in Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species of special concern in the State of Colorado are listed in a database maintained by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program at Colorado State University (CDOW, 2001). Coordination with the USFWS would be necessary if any species of special concern were identified within the project area. Because of the large geographical size of the regional study area and the scope of the vegetation assessments, impacts to vegetation communities are generalized. To determine general vegetation impacts, GIS tools were employed to calculate the acres of NDIS defined vegetation communities located outside of CDOT existing right-of-way and inside of alternative construction footprints. To further clarify the extent of impacts, urban areas and bare ground were eliminated from impact acreages, and an average acreage was deducted from the total area of impacts to account for areas of existing impervious surface outside of CDOT right-of- way but within alternative construction footprints. The purpose of the impact assessment is to provide a repeatable method of comparative analysis between the alternatives. • Vegetation 3.10.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.10.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2030. These actions would take place regardless of any proposed improvements. The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. The No-Action Alternative generally would have only a minimal effect on existing vegetation resources. Existing conditions described in Section 3.10.1 would continue. With increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to vegetation would be expected. Effects from existing or increasing development on vegetation could include population fragmentation, reductions in riparian zones, and ground and soil disturbance which could promote increased germination of noxious weed populations (further discussed in Section 3.11 Noxious Weeds). 3.10.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes safety improvements, construction of additional general purpose lanes on I-25, structure upgrades, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Safety Improvements • Under Package A, improvements would occur between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1). Safety improvements for Package A would generally affect agricultural and urban landscape vegetation communities. Direct Impacts— Implementation of safety improvements between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1)would result in the removal of approximately 78 acres of vegetation in areas of irrigated and dryland pasture. Indirect Impacts — Soil disturbance from construction equipment could create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between areas of construction and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Temporary impacts could include ground and soil disturbance allowing for potential germination and invasion of noxious weed species. General Purpose Lanes Under Package A, one additional northbound general purpose lane and one additional southbound general purpose lane would be constructed between SH 14 and SH 60 plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60 (A-H2) and between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3). Implementation of the general purpose lanes for Package A would generally affect riparian woodlands, emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands, and agricultural areas. Wetland impacts are further discussed in Section 3.8 Wetlands. • Direct Impacts —Anticipated direct impacts from the development of general purpose and auxiliary lanes would include the removal of approximately 522 acres of riparian, woodland, agricultural, and various wetland vegetation communities. Impacts would be expected from fill Vegetation 3.10.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • placement during construction of transportation improvements and damage by construction equipment. These areas contain large trees along the roadside and various bodies of open water that lie within the alignment with associated emergent wetland habitat. Indirect Impacts —The addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Structure Upgrades Package A would provide structural upgrades between E-470 and US 36 (A-H4). Upgrades under Package A would generally affect agricultural vegetation communities. Direct Impacts — Construction equipment and installation of upgrades would result in the removal of approximately 2 acres of vegetation in agricultural areas. Direct impacts could occur in the form of clearing and grading within the proximity of the structure being improved. Indirect Impacts — Soil disturbance from construction equipment could create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts could include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between areas of construction and vegetation • areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Temporary impacts could include ground and soil disturbance allowing for potential germination and invasion of noxious weed species. Commuter Rail Package A includes the construction of a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont (A-T1). Also included would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that connects this point to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton (A-T2). Commuter rail development would generally affect native prairie, and agricultural areas. Direct Impacts — Development of the proposed commuter rail would result in the removal of approximately 309 acres of vegetation in fragmented parcels of native prairie, some of which is inhabited by prairie dogs. Native and non-native grasses, along with several species of flowering plants, would be affected, although these areas contain a larger amount of non- native and weedy species due to past and present land use practices. Vegetation most affected along this component would be that of landscaped trees in developed residential areas and agricultural lands that lie within the alignment. Indirect Impacts — Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed alignment and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways and the potential • introduction of weed species. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Vegetation 3.10-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Indirect impacts resulting from project induced growth, transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1 Land Use. Commuter Bus Package A includes the addition of commuter bus service between Greeley, Denver, and Denver International Airport (DIA) (A-T3 &A-T4), which would generally affect agricultural vegetation communities Direct Impacts — Development of the proposed commuter bus and associated facilities would result in the removal of approximately 16 acres of vegetation in agricultural lands that lie within the alignment. Indirect Impacts — Soil disturbance from construction equipment could create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed alignment and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways and the potential introduction of weed species. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. 3.10.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes safety improvements, construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the • implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Safety Improvements Under Package B, improvements would occur between SH 1 and SH 14 (B-H1). Safety improvements for Package B would generally affect agricultural and urban landscape vegetation communities. Direct Impacts— Implementation of safety improvements between SH 1 and SH 14 (B-H1) would result in the removal of approximately 75 acres of vegetation in areas of irrigated and dryland pasture. Indirect Impacts—Soil disturbance from construction equipment could create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between areas of construction and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Temporary impacts could include ground and soil disturbance allowing for potential germination and invasion of noxious weed species. Tolled Express Lanes Under Package B, a northbound and southbound tolled express lane would be constructed from SH 14 to SH 60 (B-H2), SH 60 to E-470 (B-H3), and E-470 to US 36 (B-H4); the exception being the section between Harmony Road and SH 60, which would include two tolled express lanes in each direction. Construction of tolled express lanes would generally affect riparian woodlands, emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands, and agricultural areas. • Wetland impacts are further discussed in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Vegetation 3.10-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Direct Impacts —Anticipated direct impacts to this area include removal of approximately 729 acres of riparian woodland, agricultural, and various wetland vegetation communities. Impacts would be expected as a result of fill placement caused by construction of transportation improvements and damage by construction equipment. These areas contain some trees along the roadside and various bodies of open water that lie within the alignment with associated emergent wetland habitat. Indirect Impacts —The addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Bus Rapid Transit Package B includes the addition of bus rapid transit and associated facilities from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and to DIA (B-T1 & B-T2). Bus rapid transit would generally affect agricultural vegetation communities. Direct Impacts — Development of the proposed bus rapid transit and associated facilities would result in the removal of approximately 15 acres of vegetation in agricultural lands that lie within the alignment. • Indirect Impacts — Soil disturbance from construction equipment could create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed alignment and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways and the potential introduction of weed species. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. 3.10.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative includes construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, the implementation of commuter rail, 1-25 express bus improvements and a commuter bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. 1-25 Highway Improvements The Preferred Alternative includes buffer-separated tolled express lanes in each direction of 1-25. One general purpose lane would be added in each direction of 1-25 from SH 14 to SH 66, and 16 existing interchanges would be upgraded. Direct Impacts — Direct impacts from the development of general purpose and tolled express lanes would include the removal of approximately 600 acres of riparian, woodland, agricultural, and various wetland vegetation communities. Wetland impacts are further discussed in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Impacts would be expected from fill placement during construction of transportation improvements and damage by construction equipment. These areas contain • large trees along the roadside and various bodies of open water that lie within the alignment with associated emergent wetland habitat. Vegetation 3.10-8 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Indirect Impacts—The addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. Commuter Rail Improvements The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line in Thornton. The rail line would be largely single-track with passing tracks at four locations and would include a maintenance road along part of the rail. Direct Impacts — Commuter rail development would generally affect native prairie, agricultural and urban landscape vegetation. Development of the proposed commuter rail would result in the removal of approximately 168 acres of vegetation in fragmented parcels of native prairie, some of which is inhabited by prairie dogs. Native and non-native grasses, along with several species of flowering plants, would be affected, although these areas contain a larger amount of non-native and weedy species due to past and present land use practices. Vegetation most affected along this component would be that of landscaped trees in developed residential areas and agricultural lands that lie within the alignment. • Indirect Impacts—The additional commuter rail stations, a maintenance road, and commuter rail maintenance facility would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment could also create favorable conditions for weedy species to establish. Other indirect impacts would include the reduction or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed alignment and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways and the potential introduction of weed species. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes and also provide habitat for wildlife. 1-25 Express Bus Improvements The Preferred Alternative includes express bus service from the northern communities of Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and to DIA. The bus routes would use the proposed tolled express lanes along 1-25. The impacts from the construction of tolled express lanes that would be used for the express bus service are discussed above under 1-25 highway improvements. The construction of the express bus stations would result in approximately 41 acres of impact to agricultural vegetation communities. Commuter Bus Improvements The Preferred Alternative includes commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. In general, the proposed bus routes would run along existing roadways and • thus would not result in direct or indirect impacts on existing vegetation communities. The construction of the commuter bus stations would result in approximately 9 acres of impact to agricultural vegetation communities. Vegetation 3.10.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.10.2.5 SUMMARY OF DIRECT IMPACTS Table 3.10-3 summarizes direct impacts associated with the No-Action and build alternatives. Table 3.10-3 Summary of Direct Impacts Alternative Vegetation Direct Impacts No-Action Alternative 0.0 acre Package A 927 acres Package B 819 acres Preferred Alternative 818 acres 3.10.2.6 IMPACTS FROM INDUCED GROWTH Impacts to environmental resources as a result of induced growth caused by the construction of either build package including transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1 Land Use. 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures CDOT revegetation best management practices (BMP) and guidelines will be followed to ensure adequate revegetation of the project area. All disturbed areas will be seeded in phases • throughout construction. Although specific BMPs to be used will not be determined until final design, mitigation measures will include: ► Minimize the amount of disturbance and limit the amount of time that disturbed locations are allowed to be non-vegetated. The project will follow CDOT standard specifications for the amount of time that disturbed areas are allowed to be non-vegetated. ► Avoid existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation to the maximum extent possible, especially wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. ► Salvage weed-free topsoil for use in seeding. ► Implement temporary and permanent erosion control measures to limit erosion and soil loss. Erosion control blankets will be used on steep, newly seeded slopes to control erosion and to promote the establishment of vegetation. Slopes will be roughened at all times. ► Revegetate all disturbed areas with native grass and forb species. Seed, mulch, and mulch tackifier will be applied in phases throughout construction. • Vegetation 3.10-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► Develop an acceptable revegetation plan with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties. The revegetation plan must also be acceptable to municipalities, such as Fort Collins and Longmont, within their jurisdictional areas. ► Senate Bill 40 (33-5-101-107, CRS 1973 as amended) requires any agency of the state to obtain wildlife certification from the CDOW when the agency plans construction in "...any stream or its bank tributaries...". In these areas, trees and shrubs are recommended to be replaced on a 1:1 basis (trees) and square-foot basis (shrubs). ► The proposed project area falls within the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, an agreement between CDOT, CDOW, FHWA, and USFWS. The initiative included a BA and mitigation measures for FHWA funding of CDOT's routine maintenance and upgrade of existing transportation corridors in eastern Colorado for a 20-year period beginning in 2003. The BA includes all of 1-25 within Colorado. A BO was issued by the USFWS, which covers the bald eagle and 29 species of concern (USFWS, 2003). Further information regarding impacts to shortgrass prairie species and species-specific habitat mitigation measures is included in Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species. • • Vegetation 3.10-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Vegetation 3.10.12 • N ORTH 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 11 Noxious Weeds • 0 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.11 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.11.1 Affected Environment Noxious weeds are invasive, non-native plants introduced to Colorado by accident or What's in Section 3.11? which spread after being planted for another purpose and which result in lands with 3.11 Noxious Weeds decreased economic and environmental 3.11.1 Affected Environment 3.11 value. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act .2 Environmental Consequences 3.11.2.1 No-Action Altemative of 2003 (35-5.5-101 through 119, C.R.S.) 3.11.2.2 Package A recognizes that, "certain undesirable plants 3.11.2.3 Package B constitute a present threat to the continued 3.11.2.4 Preferred Alternative economic and environmental value of the 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures lands of the state and if present in any area of the state must be managed." The legislation places all public and private lands in Colorado under the jurisdiction of local governments to manage noxious weeds. According to the Act, a noxious weed meets one or more of the following criteria: ► Aggressively invades or is detrimental to economic crops or native plant communities ► Is poisonous to livestock • ► Is a carrier of detrimental insects, diseases, or parasites ► Has direct or indirect effects that are detrimental to the environmentally sound management of natural or agricultural systems Under the revised Colorado Noxious Weed Act of 2003, state-designated noxious weeds are categorized as high (List A), medium (List B), or low (List C) priority, and individual counties publish their own specific noxious weed lists designated for management. CDOT also maintains a priority noxious weed list. Biological resource data for the regional study area were collected from existing sources, such as maps, databases, publications, and agency information. This information was used to provide context of the resource in the region and to assist in assessing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in the project area. A noxious weed reconnaissance survey of the project area was conducted in late summer 2006. No noxious weed species from the high-priority list were noted in the project area during the survey. Infestations of noxious weed species from the state medium-priority list, low-priority list, county lists, and CDOT's priority list were apparent in the project area during the surveys. These noxious weed species are listed in Table 3.11-1. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (List C) is also present in the project area. Other noxious weed species that have an earlier blooming period or that would only be noted during a complete walking survey also could be present in the project area. Impact acreages were calculated using existing CDOT right-of-way areas and evaluation of aerial photography. • Noxious Weeds 3.11.1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.11-1 State of Colorado, County, and CDOT Weed List Species Observed in the Regional Study Area Common Colorado Adams Boulder Broom- Denver Larimer Weld CD0T Name/ Noxious County County field County County County Priority Scientific Weed List Weed Weed County Weed Weed Weed Weed Name List List Weed List List List List List Canada thistle (Cirsium B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes arvense) Common mullein (Verbascum C Yes thapsus) Common teasel (Dipsacus B Yes Yes fullonum) Field bindweed (Convolvulus C Yes Yes Yes arvensis) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes esula) Puncture vine (Tribulus C Yes te • terrestristris) Russian olive (Elaeagnus B Yes Yes angustifolia) Salt cedar/ Tamarisk B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Tamarix sp.) Scotch thistle (Onopordum B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes acanthium) Note: Since there are no improvements proposed within Jefferson County, six counties were discussed within the regional study area. 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences Noxious weeds are widespread throughout the project area due to past and present land use practices. These species have an adaptive ability to colonize disturbed areas very rapidly while out-competing existing vegetation species and reducing the viability and usable habitat for wildlife species (see Section 3.10 Vegetation and Section 3.12 Wildlife for further discussion of impacts to these resources). Noxious weed populations typically colonize and are a frequent problem in areas that have had recent ground or soil disturbances. Based on proposed project activities, the environmental consequences for spread of noxious weeds would be greater in areas that would be impacted by expansion of the roadway or addition of rail lines or express lanes due to the greater disturbance of soil within the project area. Approximate impact acreages for soil disturbances were calculated using an average percentage of soil • disturbance based on the impacts to vegetation communities as described in Section 3.10 Vegetation. Impact acreages are generalized and provided here for the purpose of comparative analysis. Noxious Weeds 3.11-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Impacts common to all build alternatives include potential disturbance to natural resources due to the establishment and spread of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds alter natural vegetation communities, sometimes outcompeting native species and degrading the natural functions of native vegetation communities. Within the project area, the most prevalent natural vegetation communities are native prairie and riparian corridors. Encroachment of noxious weeds into these areas will inhibit natural functions within the native communities, with noxious weeds outcompeting native species and decreasing the available habitat to wildlife. Sensitive wildlife species, including Preble's meadow jumping mouse, are dependent on riparian corridors for nesting and dispersal and will be affected by the further establishment and spread of noxious weeds in riparian areas throughout the project area. The potential for noxious weeds to establish and spread onto public lands such as parks and open spaces, and agricultural areas throughout the project area, is present for all build alternatives. Implementation of mitigation measures can decrease the likelihood of the introduction and further establishment of noxious weeds as a result of the build alternatives and are described in greater detail in Section 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures. 3.11.2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Because the No-Action Alternative includes plans for structure replacement (e.g., SH 392 interchange) it would contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. However, given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts • described below for the build alternatives. 3.11.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes safety improvements, construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, structural upgrades, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Safety Improvements Under Package A, major and minor safety improvements would occur between SH 1 and SH 14 (A-H1). Soil disturbance (approximately 26 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of Canada thistle and leafy spurge into open areas. General Purpose Lanes Under Package A, one additional northbound general purpose lane and one additional southbound general purpose lane would be constructed between SH 14 and SH 60 plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60 (A-H2) and between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3). Soil disturbance (approximately 172 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of noxious weeds on roadsides and possibly introduce new noxious weed species. Ground disturbance caused by construction projects are often colonized by noxious weed species preventing the establishment of native vegetation. Soil disturbance along the banks of streams could increase the invasion and establishment of tamarisk, which threatens native riparian trees and shrubs. Various streams lie within the project alignment, including the • St. Vrain and Big Thompson rivers. Noxious Weeds 3.11-3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • In general, a wide variety of noxious weeds are present in Weld County (see Table 3.11-1); therefore, areas impacted by project activities in Weld County would be impacted by further invasion and establishment of weedy species of concern, including field bindweed and Canada thistle. Structure Upgrades Package A would provide structural upgrades between E-470 and US 36 (A-H4). Soil disturbance caused by construction equipment in the project area could increase the spread of noxious weeds in open and residential areas. Commuter Rail Package A includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont (A-T1). Also included would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that connects this point to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton (A-T2). It is anticipated that impacts associated with weed populations would occur from construction activities involved with rail construction, maintenance facilities, park and ride facilities, and rail stations. Soil disturbance (approximately 102 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of leafy spurge and Canada thistle into open and residential areas, as well as patches of native prairie that lie within the rail alignment. Commuter Bus • Package A includes commuter bus service and bus stations between Greeley, Denver, and Denver International Airport (DIA). The bus routes proposed for Package A would run along existing roadways and thus would not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds, but soil disturbance (approximately 5 acres) caused by construction equipment at station locations could increase the spread of noxious weeds in open and residential areas. 3.11.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of safety improvements, tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Safety Improvements Under Package B, major and minor safety improvements would occur between SH 1 and SH 14 (B-H1). Soil disturbance (approximately 25 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of Canada thistle and leafy spurge into open areas. Tolled Express Lanes Under Package B, a northbound and southbound tolled express lane would be constructed from SH 14 to SH 60, SH 60 to E-470, and E-470 to US 36; the exception being the section between Harmony Road and SH 60, which would include two tolled express lanes in each direction. The consequences of construction of tolled express lanes would be similar to that of • Package A for the alignments between SH 14 and E-470. Soil disturbance (approximately 241 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of noxious weeds on Noxious Weeds 3.11.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. roadsides and possibly introduce new noxious weed species. Ground disturbance caused by construction projects are often colonized by noxious weed species preventing the establishment of native vegetation. Soil disturbance along the banks of streams could increase the invasion and establishment of tamarisk, which threatens native riparian trees and shrubs. Various streams lie within the project alignment, including the St. Vrain and Big Thompson rivers. In general, a wide variety of noxious weeds are present in Weld County (see Table 3.11-1); therefore, areas impacted by project activities in Weld County could be impacted by further invasion and establishment of weedy species of concern, including field bindweed and Canada thistle. For the project area between E-470 and US 36, soil disturbance would lead to an increase in the spread of noxious weeds in open and residential areas, including several small wetlands that lie within the rail alignment. Weedy species of concern in this area include leafy spurge and Canada thistle. Bus Rapid Transit Package B includes bus rapid transit from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and to DIA. The bus routes proposed for Package B would run along existing roadways and thus would not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. • Minor impacts in the form of soil disturbance (approximately 5 acres) caused by construction of bus rapid transit stations and park and ride facilities could increase the spread of leafy spurge and Canada thistle into open and residential areas, as well as patches of native prairie adjacent to the facilities. 3.11.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative includes construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, the implementation of commuter rail, 1-25 express bus improvements and a commuter bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. 1-25 Highway Improvements The Preferred Alternative includes buffer-separated tolled express lanes in each direction of 1-25. One general purpose lane would be added in each direction of 1-25 from SH 14 to SH 66, and 16 existing interchanges would be upgraded. Soil disturbance (approximately 198 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of noxious weeds on roadsides and possibly introduce new noxious weed species. Ground disturbance caused by construction projects are often colonized by noxious weed species preventing the establishment of native vegetation. Soil disturbance along the banks of streams could increase the invasion and establishment of tamarisk, which threatens native riparian trees and shrubs. Various streams lie within the project alignment, including the St. Vrain and Big Thompson rivers. In general, a wide variety of noxious weeds are present in Weld County; therefore, areas impacted by project activities in Weld County would be impacted by further invasion and • establishment of weedy species of concern, including field bindweed and Canada thistle. Noxious Weeds 3.11-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • For the project area between E-470 and US 36, soil disturbance would lead to an increase in the spread of noxious weeds in open and residential areas, including several small wetlands that lie within the rail alignment. Weedy species of concern in this area include leafy spurge and Canada thistle. Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line in Thornton. A maintenance road has been added along part of the BNSF line. The rail line would be largely single-track with passing tracks at four locations. It is anticipated that impacts associated with weed populations would occur from construction activities involved with rail construction, maintenance facilities, park and ride facilities, and rail stations. Soil disturbance (approximately 55 acres) caused by construction equipment could increase the spread of leafy spurge and Canada thistle into open and residential areas, as well as patches of native prairie that lie within the rail alignment. Noxious weed impacts associated with the commuter rail component of the Preferred Alternative would affect a smaller area of disturbance than the commuter rail component in Package A (see Section 3.10 Vegetation)for vegetation impacts. 1-25 Express Bus (Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver/DIA) The Preferred Alternative includes express bus service from the northern communities of Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and to DIA. The bus routes would use the proposed express lanes along 1-25. The consequences of construction of tolled express lanes are discussed in the 1-25 Highway Improvements component. • Impacts in the form of soil disturbance (approximately 13 acres) caused by construction of express bus stations could increase the spread of leafy spurge and Canada thistle into open and residential areas, as well as patches of native prairie adjacent to the facilities. US 85 Commuter Bus (Greeley to Denver) The Preferred Alternative includes commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. In general, the proposed bus routes would run along existing roadways and thus would not contribute to the spread of noxious weeds. Five proposed commuter bus stations and a maintenance facility would result in permanent impacts and soil disturbance (approximately 3 acres) caused by construction equipment. Construction of these facilities could increase the spread of noxious weeds into adjacent and open areas. • Noxious Weeds 3.11-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.11.2.5 SUMMARY OF DIRECT IMPACTS Table 3.11-2 summarizes direct impacts associated with the No-Action and build alternatives. Table 3.11-2 Summary of Direct Impacts Alternative Noxious Weeds Direct Impact (acreage of soil disturbance) No-Action Alternative 0.0 Package A 305 Package B 271 Preferred Alternative 269 Indirect Impacts Common to All Build Packages Construction of all build packages would disturb areas that are already inhabited by noxious weeds, and would also disturb areas that are currently weed-free. These new disturbances could inadvertently contribute to the potential introduction of noxious weed populations. Both temporary roads and work areas would be susceptible to potential new noxious weed population invasions. Impacts to environmental resources as a result of induced growth caused by the construction of the build packages are further discussed in Section 3.1 Land Use and Appendix C. 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures • Since highway construction will involve soil disturbance that could exacerbate invasion of noxious weed species, an Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan will be incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction. The Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan will identify and describe the noxious weed infestations in the project area and identify the most appropriate control methods for each. Specific best management practices (BMPs) will be required during construction to reduce the potential for introduction and spread of noxious weed species. These will include: ► Noxious weed mapping will be included in the construction documents along with appropriate control methods for noxious weeds. ► Highway right-of-way areas will be inspected periodically by the associated city or its consultants during construction and during post-construction weed monitoring for invasion of noxious weeds. ► Weed management measures will include removal of heavily infested topsoil, herbicide treatment of lightly infested topsoil, and other herbicide or mechanical treatments, limiting disturbance areas, phased seeding with native species throughout the project, and monitoring during and after construction. ► Use of herbicides will include selection of appropriate herbicides, timing of herbicide spraying, and use of a backpack sprayer in and adjacent to sensitive areas, such as wetlands and riparian areas. See Section 3.8 Wetlands for more information. ► Certified weed-free hay and/or mulch will be used in all revegetated areas. • ► No fertilizers will be allowed on the project site. ► Supplemental weed control measures will be added during design and construction planning. Noxious Weeds 3.11-7 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Preventative control measures for project design and construction may include: ► Native Plants. Only native species will be used to revegetate sites disturbed by construction activities. Native plant species used for revegetation will be coordinated with agencies and CDOT specialists. ► Weed Free Forage Act. Materials used for revegetation will be inspected and regulated in accordance with provisions of the Weed Free Forage Act, Title 35, Article 27.5, CRS. ► Topsoil Management. Imported topsoil must be inspected by the project's Noxious Weed Management Supervisor. If it is determined to be contaminated with weeds, or if it cannot be inspected properly, it cannot be used on the project. ► Equipment Management. Equipment will remain on designated roadways and stay out of weed-infested areas until the areas are treated. All equipment will be cleaned of all soil and vegetative plant parts before its arrival at a project site. • • Noxious Weeds 3.11-8 • N oRTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 12 Wildlife • • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.12 WILDLIFE This section addresses wildlife, wildlife crossings, and aquatic resources. Important What's in Section 3.12? wildlife resources in the project area include 3.12 Wildlife riparian and aquatic habitats and wildlife 3.12.1 Regulatory Framework movement corridors. 3.12.2 Affected Environment 3.12.2.1 Migratory Birds 3.12.2.2 Raptors 3.12.1 Regulatory Framework 3.12.2.3 Big Game and Movement Corridors CDOT projects must comply with federal, 3.12.2.4 Sensitive Wildlife Habitat state, and local laws and regulations Areas protecting wildlife species including: 3.12.2.5 Other Wildlife 3.12.2.6 Aquatic Resources ► The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences of 1934, as amended (16 United States 3.12.3.1 No-Action Alternative Code [USG] §§ 661-667e) 3.12.3.2 Package A 3.12.3.3 Package B ► The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 3.12.3.4 Preferred Alternative as amended (16USC §§ 703-712) 3.12.3.5 Summary of Effects to Wildlife 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures ► Executive Order 13186 3.12.4.1 No-Action Alternative 3.12.4.2 Packages A, Package B, and • ► Colorado Senate Bill (SB) 40 (SB40) Preferred Alternative (33-5-101-107, CRS 1973, as amended) ► The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires the federal action agency to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) on issues related to conservation of fish and wildlife resources for federal projects resulting in modifications to waters or channels of a body of water (16USC §§ 661-667e). Migratory birds, including raptors and active nests, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The act prohibits activities that may harm or harass migratory birds during the nesting and breeding season. Removal of active nests that results in the loss of eggs or young is also prohibited. In Colorado, most birds except the European starling, house sparrow, and rock dove (pigeon) are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16USC §§ 703-712). Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies to take certain actions to implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (86 FR 3853). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16USC §§ 668-668d) includes several prohibitions not found in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, such as molestation or disturbance. In 1962, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was amended to include the golden eagle. SB40 (33-5-101-107, CRS. 1973, as amended) requires any agency of the State of Colorado to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries. CDOT has guidelines for SB40 wildlife certification, which were developed in cooperation with CDOW (CDOT, 2003a). • Wildlife 3.12.1 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan establishes natural area buffers for bald eagles, great blue herons, waterfowl, and other wildlife. More detail on all regulations pertaining to wildlife resources is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO Resources Corporation [ERO], 2008 and Addendum ERO, 2011a). 3.12.2 Affected Environment Wildlife resources were reviewed during the initial screening of alternatives using existing information from readily available sources. Existing information was reviewed and special concerns related to the project were identified through coordination and consultation with USFWS, CDOW, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), and local open space management agencies. Once the proposed project area was identified, detailed habitat evaluations were performed in the project area based on fieldwork and additional review of existing information for raptors and wildlife crossings. Specific methods used for data collection are described in detail in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO, 2008). Wildlife in the regional study area generally consists of species adapted to highly disturbed urban habitats or cultivated lands. Aquatic and riparian habitats in the regional study area, although typically disturbed by human activity, provide habitat for a greater diversity of species. The quality and connectivity of wildlife habitat in the regional study area is supported by the large expanses of protected open space or otherwise undeveloped land, which preserves several habitat types, as well as movement corridors between different habitat areas. Wildlife Refuges and Natural Areas are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 Section 4(0 Evaluation. 3.12.2.1 MIGRATORY BIRDS • Nearly all bird species present in the regional study area are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bird species use different habitat types in the project area for shelter, breeding, wintering, and foraging at various times during the year. Common birds occurring in the regional study area include common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), western meadowlark (Stumella neglecta), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), and black-billed magpie (Pica pica). A comprehensive list of bird species known to occur in the regional study area is found in Appendix B of the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). 3.12.2.2 RAPTORS Raptors commonly occurring in and near the project area include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Other raptors likely to occur near the project area include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooper!), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsonf), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) (NDIS, 2009). Raptor nests in and near the project area were mapped in April 2005, April 2006, spring/summer 2009 and April/May 2010 (ERO, 2006; 2011a). While most raptor nests observed were unoccupied; the occupied nests were mostly used by red-tailed hawks, Swainson's hawks, or great horned owls. • Wildlife 3.12-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.12.2.3 BIG GAME AND MOVEMENT CORRIDORS 1-25 is a substantial barrier to east-west movements of big game and other wildlife in the project area due to traffic, noise, and lack of cover. Existing and proposed rail corridors also are a potential barrier to wildlife movement. Existing wildlife crossings in the project area occur primarily where major drainages cross the project area under bridges or culverts. Wildlife crossings for big game, such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), occur along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers, and St. Vrain Creek (Vierra, personal communication, 2006; Huwer, personal communication, 2006). The area around Ish Reservoir is also a movement corridor for mule deer and white-tailed deer (Huwer, personal communication, 2006). American elk (Census elaphus) are known to occasionally move through the project area along the Big Thompson River corridor at the proposed commuter rail alignment (Huwer, personal communication, 2006). Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Felis concolor) may occasionally occur in the western portion of the project area, possibly along the proposed commuter rail alignment from Fort Collins south to Loveland (NDIS, 2009). The project area is on the periphery of the occupied range for both of these species (NDIS, 2009). Mountain lions may occasionally move through the project area along major drainages (Huwer, personal communication, 2006). Wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors were identified based on input from CDOW staff, review of road kill data collected by CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) (from 1993 to 2004), and field review (refer to Table 3.12-1). Additional data was opportunistically • collected by CDOT maintenance crews from 2004 to 2007. • Wildlife 3.12.3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-1 Summary of Wildlife Crossing Areas Identified in the Project Area. Wildlife Wildlife Usage Crossing Area Existing Structure Cache la Poudre The section of I-25 from SH 14 south to SH 392 Multiple-span bridges River at 1-25 is used as a crossing area by deer and other northbound and southbound. wildlife, as shown by the relatively high number The existing bridges provide of wildlife collisions in this area, and as reported good passage for wildlife. by CDOW staff(Vierra, pers. comm. 2006). Fossil Creek at No data is available for collisions at the railway, Single-span bridge. The existing the BNSF but a few collisions have been recorded on bridge over the creek appears to alignment US 287 near Fossil Creek, which is less than provide good crossing 0.5 mile downstream from the railway crossing. opportunities. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Multiple-span bridge. The River at BNSF Thompson River in this area is a movement existing bridge provides good alignment corridor for deer, elk, and other wildlife (Vierra, passage for wildlife. pers. comm. 2006; Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). Relatively few wildlife collisions have been documented at US 287 near this location. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Multiple-span bridges River at 1-25 Thompson River in this area is a movement (northbound, southbound, and corridor for deer and other wildlife (Huwer, pers. service road). The existing comm. 2006). The section of I-25 extending bridges are adequately sized for about 3 miles north and south of the Big deer and other wildlife. Thompson River is used as a crossing site by wildlife, as indicated by the relatively high • number of wildlife collisions recorded in this area. Little Thompson The Little Thompson River is a movement Multiple-span bridge. The River at BNSF corridor for deer and other wildlife (Huwer, pers. existing bridge is adequately alignment comm. 2006). CSP data shows that several sized for deer and other wildlife. collisions have been documented along US 287 about 2 miles to the west. Little Thompson The Little Thompson River is a movement Multiple-span bridges River at 1-25 corridor for deer and other wildlife (Huwer, pers. (northbound, southbound, and comm. 2006). CSP data shows that several service road). The existing collisions have been documented along 1-25 bridges are adequately sized for near the Little Thompson River. deer and other wildlife. Ish Reservoir CDOW biologists indicated that a deer crossing No major structures, crossings Area problem occurs along US 287 west of occur at grade. Ish Reservoir(Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). CSP collision data indicates that deer, elk, and coyote have been killed crossing this section of US 287. The BNSF rail alignment passes to the east of Ish Reservoir, about 1.5 miles to the east of US 287. Wildlife crossings of the railway likely occur at a similar rate as US 287. 1-25 between CSP collision data shows that deer and other Concrete box culvert at North Little Thompson wildlife have been killed along the section of Creek, adequate for small-and River and 1-25 between the Little Thompson River and medium-sized mammals; St. Vrain Creek St. Vrain Creek. The land surrounding 1-25 in inadequate for deer and larger this area is mostly open and agricultural, and mammals. • wildlife are killed when attempting to cross at grade. Wildlife 3.12-4 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-1 Summary of Wildlife Crossing Areas Identified in the Project Area. (cont'd) Wildlife Wildlife Usage Existing Structure Crossing Area St. Vrain Creek at CDOW biologists reported that St. Vrain Creek Multiple-span bridge. The existing SH 119 serves as a movement corridor for deer and wildlife passage under SH 119 at other wildlife (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006), and a St. Vrain Creek is undersized for broad, open area occurs at this location on both deer due to low vertical sides of SH 119 connecting undeveloped land clearance, but is large enough for along St. Vrain and Boulder creeks to St. Vrain small-and medium-sized State Park to the north and providing a natural mammals. movement corridor for wildlife. St. Vrain Creek at CDOW biologists reported that St. Vrain Creek Multiple-span bridge (northbound, 1-25 serves as a movement corridor for deer and southbound, and service road). other wildlife(Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). CSP The existing wildlife passage collision data shows that deer and other wildlife under 1-25 is adequately sized for have been killed crossing 1-25 near St. Vrain deer and other wildlife. Creek. This crossing is used by deer, as indicated by tracks observed in the field. 1-25 west of CSP collision data indicate that deer and other No major structures. Firestone and wildlife are occasionally killed along a 3-mile Frederick section of 1-25 west of Firestone and Frederick. The surrounding area is mostly open and agricultural, and wildlife are killed when • attempting to cross at grade. Commuter rail The rail alignment follows Weld County Road No major structures. alignment west of (WCR) 7 about 1 mile west of 1-25. No wildlife Firestone and collision data is available for this area, but wildlife Frederick movements probably are similar to 1-25 west of Firestone and Frederick, as described above. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at 1-25 Concrete box culvert; adequately at 1-25 could be a potential wildlife crossing area, but sized for small-and medium- collision data indicates that only occasional sized mammals. collisions with wildlife occur in this area and CDOW did not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at the None, but no existing rail line is at Commuter Rail commuter rail alignment could be a potential present, so no movement barriers Alignment wildlife movement area, but no CSP data is exist in this area. available for this area and CDOW did not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Big Dry Creek at CSP collision data show a few collisions on 1-25 Multiple-span bridge; the existing 1-25 near Big Dry Creek, but CDOW did not identify bridge is adequately sized for this area as a movement corridor. deer and other wildlife. • Wildlife 3.12.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.12.2.4 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS Several sensitive wildlife habitat areas were identified during field work. These areas were identified as sensitive wildlife habitat because they are wildlife crossing areas or because they provide known habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species as defined by the USFWS or CDOW (refer to Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species). These habitat areas are listed in Table 3.12-2; their locations are shown in Figure 3.12-1. Table 3.12-2 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Project Area Sensitive Wildlife Comments Habitat Area Cache la Poudre River Known occurrences of brassy minnow and Iowa darter; bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage; white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor Fossil Creek Reservoir Bald eagle winter roost occurs at reservoir. Big Thompson River Known occurrence of Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) (Preble's)and likely occurrence of Iowa darter; bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage; white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor; Big Thompson State Wildlife Area occurs just west of 1-25 Little Thompson River Possible occurrence of Preble's, bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage, white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area, • wildlife movement corridor, CNHP Potential Conservation Area at U.S. 287 Ish Reservoir and Great blue heron rookery; wildlife crossing area. surrounding area St. Vrain Creek Bald eagle winter roost west of 1-25; bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage; known occurrences of common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat; white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor; St. Vrain State Park occurs just west of 1-25 South Platte River Known occurrences of common shiner and brassy minnow; wildlife movement corridor. Source: NDIS, 2009; CNHP, 2005;CDOW, 2010; USFWS, 2010(also refer to Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species). 3.12.2.5 OTHER WILDLIFE Table 3.12-3 lists other wildlife species commonly found in the project area including big game species, other mammals, raptors, other migratory birds, reptiles, and amphibians. • Wildlife 3.12-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.12-1 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats in the Regional Study Area LEGEND IN � Al Study Corridors _ _ "/ Highways e...' 4 ii ,enogtorr - --•• /N/ Arterial Roads i �.0` ' \ iJ� Regional Study Area \---(E3-7 j = Cobb \,v• /, l Lake City Boundaries pie;CE ,\ a Cities & Towns in Project Area 1 ucirt Collins \ % Streams and Rivers - -- - Aims 14 Lakes , 257 �• iTrmnath Wnsdor Reservoir Reservoir '1 Fossil LnmaUr a Faint 1 i JFYlRJni:n 1 Creek t Reservoir i -Ss r,Creek Windsrn.� •._ • I 392 C,, lw;ern. i (*epos. 1 I 4o °Odre Rive/ Greeley % 1 .� ILake :....... , 1- 3 • Loveland Beg t ca den i,h, I. .. 34 °�°S07 Evans 1 7 I ' `' La Salle • �' Campus] Inhns!i ri , i , 60 v 4. 85 , ' Berthoud Q Milliken LB 56 River /r Little Thompson r,:,,-. I . I Ilsh Ill i Reservoir = A r <r+ i Mead °ems f / i ci. C• o_. 'PlatteviU[ Longmont co i lone , .4- Venma; Q I --. Q FirY,9nnt- Niwot _ A Q Fre,ienc. \--F2 N / 1 Q Dacano Fort lupt e, ; A Gunbarrel i Cjeek N ,rte /" . � Erie' J¢° OS Q Valmont —I i d> V 0 i �Y ii A _, �`O rw:,..r.nL,,:. Boulder I ' I� i 1 le Laiav,NWJ �� iousviiy , II J_ I ` Brighton • t49 • [i tlakc • ``\• Broomheia Q Flentiersen�i / 93 -`\ 36 Nor thglenn / , \) C 0 Thornton / m \ A. ' � Q / 72 / 1" h0J/ i • r �( ✓ Denver— ..L ny I ' 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 / .r _ INorth Miles . I / 1k N Ill Wildlife 3.12-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-3 Common Wildlife Species in the Project Area Habitat Mammals Birds Reptiles and Amphibians Urban and Red fox, raccoon, striped House sparrow, European N/A developed skunk, big brown bat, fox starling, common grackle, areas squirrel, deer mouse, and house finch, mourning dove, house mouse rock dove, Canada goose, American robin, and barn swallow Riparian and Mule deer, white-tailed deer, Red-tailed hawk, Cooper's Plains gartersnake, western wetlands coyote, red fox, raccoon, hawk, Swainson's hawk, painted turtle, bullfrog, striped skunk, eastern northern harrier, great western chorus frog, cottontail, big brown bat, horned owl, American Woodhouse's toad, and tiger meadow vole, prairie vole, kestrel, great blue heron, salamander deer mouse, and house red-winged blackbird, song mouse sparrow, common yellowthroat, common snipe, northern oriole, American goldfinch, yellow warbler, and Canada goose Grassland Mule deer, coyote, American Rough-legged hawk, red- Bullsnake, yellow-bellied badger, striped skunk, red tailed hawk, Swainson's racer, western rattlesnake, fox, white-tailed jackrabbit, hawk, northern harrier, great lesser earless lizard, and desert cottontail, black-tailed homed owl,American plains spadefoot prairie dog, deer mouse, kestrel, vesper sparrow, meadow vole, prairie vole, western meadowlark, • and house mouse grasshopper sparrow, horned lark, lark bunting, house sparrow, European starling, common grackle, mourning dove, Canada goose, killdeer, and black- billed magpie Streams, Muskrat and beaver American avocet, mallard, Plains gartersnake, western lakes, and pintail, and American white painted turtle, western ponds pelican chorus frog, Woodhouse's toad, tiger salamander, and bullfrog Bridges and N/A Cliff swallow, barn swallow, N/A underpasses and rock dove Source: Species listed as "common"or"abundant"in Adams, Boulder, Larimer, or Weld counties by CDOW (NDIS, 2009)and likely to occur in the project area based on suitable habitat. 3.12.2.6 AQUATIC RESOURCES Ditches, streams, and water bodies in the project area potentially support a variety of aquatic insects, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Common fish species in creeks and streams in the project area include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), longnose sucker • (Catostomus catostomus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). Several state-listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species are known to occur in the regional study area, Wildlife 3.12-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. specifically common shiner (Notropis cornutus), brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni), Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile), and stonecat (Noturus flavus). These state listed species are addressed in Section 3.13 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. A complete list of fish species documented in lakes, rivers, and streams in the regional sturdy area is provided in Appendix C of the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO, 2008). The CNHP designated a Proposed Conservation Area, which includes the Little Thompson River at US 287. This reach of the Little Thompson River provides habitat for a number of native fish and a greater diversity of mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies compared with other Front Range streams (CNHP, 2005). Six fish species including creek chub, longnose dace, fathead minnow, longnose sucker, white sucker and green sunfish were documented in the Little Thompson on May 22, 2001 (CNHP, 2005). Results of this survey are similar to those conducted by the CDOW in 1982 and 1997. All species captured are native and common in streams along the Front Range corridor. Additionally, only a few fish out of several hundred captured showed signs of parasites or infection, indicating a healthy community (CNHP, 2005). 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the effects of the No-Action Alternative and Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on wildlife. Given the large scale of the project, and the large size of the project area, effects were estimated on a broad scale using data from a variety of sources including the USFWS, CDOW, • and project specific data collected by CDOT contractors. Direct effects to wildlife habitat were quantified where possible by measuring acres of habitat within the project limits of disturbance using GIS overlays. Effects to threatened, endangered, and state sensitive species are described in Section 3.13.3. ► Effects on migratory bird habitat were estimated based on the acreage of wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat affected by each component. ► Effects on raptors for each component were estimated based on the number of raptor nests identified within 0.5 mile of the project area for each component. ► Effects on big game and movement corridors for each component were estimated subjectively based on the number and location of identified movement corridors crossed by each component. ► Effects on other sensitive wildlife habitat (including fish)were estimated based on acres of riparian habitat affected within identified sensitive areas such as the riparian corridors along the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek. ► Effects on aquatic habitat were estimated based on acres of open water directly disturbed. Effects are evaluated by alternative component where possible. Direct effects and indirect effects were evaluated. Effects were evaluated quantitatively where possible or qualitatively where quantification was not possible or quantitative data were not available. Mitigation measures to address adverse effects of the alternatives to wildlife are discussed in Section 3.12 Mitigation Measures. • Wildlife 3.12-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.12.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2035. These actions would take place regardless of whether any of the proposed improvements in Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative occur. The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative, existing conditions would continue. With increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to wildlife would be expected. Effects from existing or increasing traffic volumes on wildlife include mortality from vehicle collisions and disturbance from noise. Insufficient traffic capacity on 1-25 could result in increased traffic on secondary roads, leading to increased mortality of wildlife from collisions and increased disturbance from noise. Effects from continued development in the 1-25 corridor would include direct loss of habitat and increasing habitat fragmentation. 3.12.3.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, construction and implementation of commuter rail, and implementation of commuter bus service. Components of this build package are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.12-4 through Table 3.12-7 below summarize environmental consequences to wildlife associated with Packages A components. Tables 3.12-14 through 3.12-16 provide a comparison of impacts • between Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative components. Package A Highway Components Overall, direct effects on wildlife from Package A highway components would result primarily from road widening, and replacement and construction of new bridges. The types of effects from the highway components would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and disturbance during construction. Indirect effects include impacts to water quality from increased sedimentation, increased traffic resulting in increased wildlife mortality, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Much of the permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as mowed rights-of-way adjacent to the existing highway. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package A highway components are described below. Migratory Birds. Package A highway components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Direct effects to migratory birds would occur from highway widening and construction of associated facilities. Direct effects would include habitat loss, displacement during construction, increased habitat fragmentation, and destruction of nests during construction. A temporary loss of habitat would occur when grassy areas are cleared and grubbed during construction, or when structures used for nesting are replaced. Impacts to wetlands from the Package A highway components are quantified in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Ground nesting birds would likely be most affected because the grassland would be the habitat most affected by the project. Migratory birds using riparian areas would be temporarily displaced during bridge widening and replacement activities and their nests could be disturbed or destroyed. Cliff swallows, which often nest on bridges and overpasses, would • Wildlife 3.12-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. be directly affected by nest destruction or nesting disturbance during bridge replacement. Indirect effects include increased disturbance due to noise and light from vehicles, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Raptors. Package A highway components would potentially affect 36 existing raptor nests located within 0.5 mile of the edge of the project area during surveys in 2005, 2006, and 2010. Direct effects include loss of raptor hunting habitat within the existing highway right-of-way. Loss of hunting habitat would most likely effect common, human-tolerant species such as red- tailed hawks and American kestrels. Raptors requiring large trees for nesting or perching would be affected where trees would be cut down or where trees are located in close proximity to highway or railway improvements. Indirect effects include increased potential for raptor collisions with vehicles as a result of increased traffic, behavioral disturbance induced by encroachment of human activities within 0.25 to 0.33 mile of nests (CDOW, 2008), increased noise, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Some behavioral disturbance could be temporary as raptors adapt to the changed environment. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package A highway components would affect four wildlife movement corridors located along drainages at the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, and Little Dry Creek and two overland corridors between the Little Thompson River and St. Vrain Creek, and west of Firestone and Frederick (Table 3.12-4). The bridges at St. Vrain Creek would not be modified. Roads and transportation corridors have many potential effects on wildlife, including habitat fragmentation, reduced access to habitat, population fragmentation and isolation, disruption of dispersal • patterns, and mortality from collisions with vehicles (Jackson, 2000). Movement corridors for big game and other wildlife are typically located along riparian corridors and stream crossings in the project area since bridges and culverts at these locations provide an opportunity for wildlife to cross under the highway or railway. Underpasses and culverts are used by many species of wildlife during seasonal migrations, or to reach suitable habitat on the other side of the highway or railway (Barnum, 2003). Without access to crossing sites such as culverts or bridges, wildlife would either avoid crossing, resulting in isolation from suitable habitat, or risk being killed by vehicles while attempting to cross the highway. • Wildlife 3.12-11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-4 Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Highway Components Component Effects on Wildlife Movement Corridors A-H1 Safety Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed in this area, and long-term effects SH 1 to SH 14 to wildlife movements from this would be minor(i.e., the same as under the No-Action Alternative). A-H2 General Purpose Lane Construction of additional lanes in this component would increase Improvements: existing fragmentation of habitat near 1-25. Bridges at the Cache SH 14 to SH 60 la Poudre and Big Thompson rivers would be replaced with larger structures that would benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall perception of openness by wildlife. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. A-H3 General Purpose Lane Construction of additional lanes in this component would increase Improvements: existing fragmentation of habitat near 1-25. The bridges at Little SH 60 to E-470 Thompson River and Little Dry Creek would be replaced with larger structures that would benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall perception of openness by wildlife. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. The size of the St. Vrain Creek bridge at 1-25 would not be modified, and these bridges would continue to provide an underpass for wildlife. Increasing highway width also increases wildlife collision risk at the overland movement corridors located between the Little Thompson River and St. Vrain • Creek, and west of Firestone and Frederick. A-H4 Structure Upgrades: No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long- E-470 to US 36 term effects to wildlife movements from this would be minor(i.e., the same as under the No-Action Alternative). Big game movement corridors in riparian areas would be temporarily disrupted during bridge- widening and replacement activities at the Cache la Poudre River, the Big Thompson River, the Little Thompson River, and Little Dry Creek. Many species are more likely to use underpasses that are wider or more open (Jackson and Griffin, 2000; Barnum, 2003). Replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts would benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the openness ratio (culvert height x width/length in meters). East-west movements of deer and other mammals are already limited by the existing lanes of 1-25, but the addition of new general purpose lanes could result in increased mortality due to collisions with vehicles at the overland corridors located between the Little Thompson River and St. Vrain Creek, and west of Firestone and Frederick. Construction of new retaining walls would also create barriers to wildlife movements across the highway, and would change wildlife crossing locations if existing at-grade crossing sites are blocked by walls (Barnum, 2003). Existing bridges that provide suitable underpasses for wildlife would likely become more important after construction of additional traffic lanes and retaining walls. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package A highway components would affect 1.93 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 3.12-5. Other sensitive wildlife habitat areas in the project area are primarily riparian and wetland areas associated with major drainageways. • These areas correspond closely with movement corridors for big game and other wildlife. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from Package A highway components would include Wildlife 3.12-12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. removal of riparian tree and shrub vegetation that provides cover for a wide variety of species in addition to the species already discussed. These effects would occur primarily during construction and replacement of bridges and overpasses. Long-term and indirect effects would include increased fragmentation of riparian habitat. Indirect effects of increased noise, light, and human disturbance would reduce available habitat. Table 3.12-5 Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A Highway Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area A-H1 Safety Improvements: N/A—No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and SH 1 to SH 14 long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor(Le.,the same as under the No-Action Alternative). A-H2 General Purpose Lane Riparian and wetland habitat at the Cache la Poudre River Improvements: (1.12 acres)and Big Thompson River(State Wildlife Area) SH 14 to SH 60 (0.53 acres)would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. A-H3 General Purpose Lane Riparian and wetland habitat at the Little Thompson River Improvements: (0.28 acres)would be affected by highway widening and bridge SH 60 to E-470 replacement under this component. Sensitive riparian habitat also occurs along St. Vrain Creek near 1-25, but no changes are proposed to the 1-25 bridge over St. Vrain Creek. A-H4 Structure Upgrades: N/A—No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and • E-470 to US 36 long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor(i.e., the same as under the No-Action Alternative). Other Wildlife Effects to wildlife from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway rights-of-way would include potential direct effects such as loss of habitat—especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration and other movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long- term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Aquatic Resources. Package A highway components would directly affect 1.82 acres of aquatic habitat. Adverse effects on fish and other aquatic organisms during construction would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect aquatic organisms. Working directly in streams would increase sediment loads, which could change water temperature or smother and kill the eggs of fish and amphibians as well as direct mortality through crushing. Working directly in streams could also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction best management practices (BMPs). Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, including deicer, and would increase the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials, which could affect aquatic organisms (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). Package A highway components include water quality ponds, which would reduce contaminants in runoff to streams and waterways. Although the ponds would be dry most of the time, they would provide a net benefit to water quality and for aquatic organisms by improving water quality • downstream. Construction of new culverts, lengthening of existing culverts, or widening existing bridges would adversely affect fish and other aquatic species by increasing shading and/or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat would be potentially Wildlife 3.12-13 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • improved through the replacement of existing concrete box culverts with more numerous culverts or free-spanning bridges. Removal or redesign of drop structures that act as barriers would also benefit fish and other aquatic organisms. Replacement of a drop structure just downstream from 1-25 on St. Vrain Creek would improve upstream movement for small fish. Package A Transit Components Overall, effects on wildlife from transit components of Package A would result primarily from construction of new tracks, replacement and construction of new bridges, and construction of other transit facilities such as new transit stations, the maintenance facility and water quality ponds. Types of effects would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance during construction, and increased mortality from collisions with trains. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as rights-of-way adjacent to the existing tracks, especially for the commuter rail section from Fort Collins to Longmont. The commuter rail segment from Longmont to North Metro (A-T2) would consist of two new sets of tracks and would be located next to existing highways in areas that are less disturbed than other portions of the project area. Habitat fragmentation and disruption of movement corridors resulting from this component (A-T2) would be a major effect to wildlife. Indirect impacts resulting from project induced growth, transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1.2 Land Use and Zoning Environmental Consequences of this Final EIS. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other • wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package A transit components are described below. Migratory Birds. Package A transit components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Direct effects to migratory birds could occur from construction of commuter rail and construction of associated facilities such as transit stations. Types of direct effects would be the same as for Package A highway components and would include habitat loss, displacement during construction, increased habitat fragmentation, and potential destruction of nests during construction. Most effects to migratory bird habitat would occur in grasslands, but effects would also occur in wetlands and riparian areas. Impacts to wetlands from the Package A transit components are quantified in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Migratory birds using riparian areas would be temporarily displaced during bridge widening and replacement activities, and their nests could be disturbed or destroyed. Ground nesting birds would be most affected by the project. Cliff swallows would be directly affected by nest destruction or nesting disturbance during bridge replacement. Indirect effects include increased disturbance due to noise and light from vehicles, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Raptors. Package A transit components potentially affect 13 existing raptor nests located during surveys in 2005, 2006, and 2010 within 0.5 mile of the edge of the project area. Direct effects from the loss of railway right-of-way would reduce the available hunting habitat for many raptors, especially red-tailed hawks and American kestrels. Raptors requiring large trees for nesting could be affected where trees would be cut down or where trees are located in close proximity to highway or railway improvements. Indirect effects include increased mortality resulting from collisions with vehicles as a result of increased traffic at rail stations, • behavioral disturbance induced by encroachment of human activities, within 0.25 to 0.33 mile of nests (CDOW, 2008), increased noise, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Some Wildlife 3.12.14 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. behavioral disturbance could be temporary as raptors adapt to the changed environment. Most of the proposed transit stations are located in previously disturbed areas; however, because of the expected induced growth around transit stations, raptors would be expected to avoid the area. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package A transit components potentially affect seven wildlife movement corridors located at Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Little Dry Creek, and the overland corridors in the Ish Reservoir and Firestone/Frederick areas (Table 3.12-6). Collisions with trains have been documented as a source of mortality for wildlife, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk (Wells et al., 1999), thus the existing BNSF railway probably results in some mortality to wildlife. Currently, the BNSF railway is not a major obstacle to wildlife movement due to the sporadic nature of fencing along the alignment, the small size of the fences (three strand barbed wire), and relatively low frequency of rail traffic. However, a future transit agency could install chain link fences on both sides of the tracks along the entire commuter rail corridor for safety and liability purposes. Construction of new retaining walls along the rail alignment would also create new barriers to wildlife movement. Where retaining walls are present, the fences would be located along the top of the retaining wall. Implementation of Package A transit alternatives would create a substantial barrier to wildlife movement because of the new fences and retaining walls, and would result in habitat fragmentation by isolating patches of wildlife habitat on opposite sides of the rail alignment. Retaining walls and fences typically funnel wildlife movements towards existing underpasses and crossing sites (Barnum, 2003). Bridges and culverts would thus become much more important for wildlife movement after construction of • commuter rail. The commuter rail components of Package A would have a much greater effect on wildlife movements and would result in greater habitat fragmentation than any other components of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Increased traffic as a result of operation of additional bus service along the feeder bus routes could result in an increase in wildlife collisions with vehicles. Overall, increased bus traffic would not affect big game movement corridors. Table 3.12-6 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package A Transit Components Component Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors A-T1 Commuter Rail: Construction of new tracks, safety fences, and retaining walls would Fort Collins to Longmont create substantial barriers to east-west wildlife movements under this component. Fencing would create a barrier at the overland crossing near Ish Reservoir. Culverts and bridges, including those at Fossil Creek and the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers would become much more important for wildlife crossings. A-T2 Commuter Rail: Construction of new tracks, safety fences, and retaining walls would Longmont to North Metro create substantial barriers to east-west wildlife movements under this component. Fencing would create a barrier at the overland crossing west of Firestone and Frederick. Culverts and bridges, including SH 119 at St Vrain Creek, the Little Dry Creek crossing of the rail alignment, and other bridges and culverts would become much more important for wildlife movements. • A-T3 Commuter Bus: Greeley No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long- to Denver and DIA term effects to wildlife movements from stations and lots associated with commuter bus would be minor. Wildlife 3.12-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package A transit components potentially affect 0.08 acre of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 3.12-7. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from the commuter rail components would include removal of riparian tree and shrub vegetation that provides cover for a wide variety of species in addition to the species already discussed. These effects would occur primarily during construction and replacement of bridges. Long-term and indirect effects would include increased fragmentation of riparian habitat. Indirect effects of increased noise, light, and human disturbance would be likely to reduce effective habitat. Table 3.12-7 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package A Transit Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area A-T1 Commuter Rail: No direct impacts to riparian and wetland habitat at the Big Fort Collins to Longmont Thompson River are expected from the rail alignment and bridge replacement. Riparian habitat at Little Thompson River would not be directly affected by the rail alignment and bridge replacement; however, indirect effects to the Potential Conservation Area designated by CNHP could result. The wildlife crossing area near Ish Reservoir would also be affected by fences and retaining walls which would create a barrier to wildlife movement. A-T2 Commuter Rail: Riparian and wetland habitat at St. Vrain Creek(0.08 acre)would Longmont to North Metro be affected by construction of a new bridge crossing. A-T3 Commuter Bus: Greeley to No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long- • Denver and DIA term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor. Other Wildlife. Disturbance of degraded habitat in railroad rights-of-way could have effects to wildlife. Potential direct effects would include loss of habitat, especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration, and other movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles or trains. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Aquatic Resources. No direct effects to aquatic habitat would result from Package A transit components because no surface waters would be directly affected by this component. Potential indirect adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of the commuter rail components would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads in streams, which would adversely affect aquatic organisms. Wider bridges would cause greater shading of streams, potentially altering stream temperature. New stations and parking lots would increase impervious surface area, leading to increased runoff to nearby streams. These effects would be short-term in duration and would be mitigated through use of construction BMPs (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). Package A transit components include construction of water quality ponds to reduce contaminants in runoff, which would benefit fish and other aquatic organisms by improving water quality downstream. Indirect effects could include interference with seasonal movements of aquatic organisms. Construction of new culverts or lengthening of existing culverts would adversely affect aquatic species by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with • concrete. Replacement of culverts with larger diameter culverts or free spanning bridges would Wildlife 3.12.16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. potentially benefit fish and other aquatic species over the long term by facilitating movements along streams and reducing shading. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit fish and other aquatic organisms. 3.12.3.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25 and implementation of bus rapid transit service. Components of Package B are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.12-8 and Table 3.12-9 summarize environmental consequences of Package B to wildlife. Tables 3.12-14 through Table 3.12-16 compare impacts associated with Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Package B Highway Components Overall, effects on wildlife and fish from Package B highway components would result primarily from road widening, and replacement or construction of new bridges. Effects to wildlife would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance during construction, and increased risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as mowed rights-of-way adjacent to the existing highway. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package B highway components are described below. Migratory Birds. Package B highway components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and • grassland habitat for migratory birds. Impacts to riparian areas and wetlands from the Package B highway components are quantified in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Types of effects to migratory birds from highway widening and construction of associated facilities under Package B would be the same as effects under Package A. Raptors. Package B highway components potentially affect 43 existing raptor nests located during surveys in 2005, 2006, and 2010 within 0.5 mile of the edge of the project area. The types of effects to raptors from Package B highway components would be the same as the types of effects from Package A highway components. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package B highway components would potentially affect five wildlife movement corridors along drainages located at the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, Little Dry Creek, and Big Dry Creek (Table 3.12-8). Additionally, highway widening could impact two already fragmented overland corridors between the Little Thompson River and St. Vrain Creek, and west of Firestone and Frederick. Package B highway components would have the same types of effects on wildlife movements as Package A highway components. • Wildlife 3.12-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-8 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Package B Highway Components Component Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors B-H1 Safety Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed in this area, and long-term effects to SH 1 to SH 14 wildlife movements would be minor. B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Construction of additional lanes in this component would increase SH 14 to SH 60 existing fragmentation of habitat near 1-25 by creating greater separation between existing habitat on either side of the highway. Bridges at the Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson rivers would be replaced with larger structures that would benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall perception of openness by wildlife. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: Construction of additional lanes in this component would increase SH 60 to E-470 existing fragmentation of habitat near 1-25. The bridges at the Little Thompson and Little Dry Creek would be replaced with larger structures that would benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall perception of openness by wildlife. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. The size of the St. Vrain Creek bridge at 1-25 would not be modified, and this bridge would continue to provide an underpass for wildlife. Increasing highway width also increases wildlife collision risk at the overland movement corridors located between the Little Thompson River and St. Vrain • Creek and west of Firestone and Fredrick. B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: Construction of additional lanes in this component would increase E-470 to US 36 existing fragmentation of habitat by 1-25. The bridge at Big Dry Creek would be replaced with a wider structure, and would continue to provide a movement corridor beneath the highway. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package B highway components potentially affect 2.35 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 3.12-9. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from Package B highway components would include removal of riparian tree and shrub vegetation that provides cover for a wide variety of species in addition to the species already discussed. These effects would occur primarily during construction and replacement of bridges and overpasses. Long-term and indirect effects would include increased fragmentation of riparian habitat. Indirect effects of increased noise, light, and human disturbance would be likely to reduce available habitat. • Wildlife 3.12-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-9 Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Package B Highway Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area B-H1 Safety Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and long- SH 1 to SH 14 term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor. B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: Riparian and wetland habitat at the Cache la Poudre River SH 14 to SH 60 (1.55 acres)and Big Thompson River(State Wildlife Area)(0.52 acre) would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: Riparian and wetland habitat at the Little Thompson River(0.28 acre) SH 60 to E-470 would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. Sensitive riparian habitat also occurs along St. Vrain Creek near 1-25, but no changes are proposed to the 1-25 bridge over St. Vrain Creek. B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: N/A—No effects to sensitive habitat are expected under this E-470 to US 36 component because no sensitive habitat occurs in the project area for this component. Other Wildlife. The types of effects to wildlife from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway rights-of-way from Package B would be the same as the types of effects from Package A. Potential direct effects of the highway components would include loss of habitat, • especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration, and other movements such as foraging, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Aquatic Resources. Package B highway components would directly affect 2.25 acres of aquatic habitat. Types of adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of Package B highway components would be the same as effects from Package A highway components and would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Types of indirect effects such as increased sediment loads during construction and long-term effects such as interference with seasonal movements would also be to the same as types of effects from Package A highway components. As with Package A highway components, Package B highway components would include water quality ponds which would provide an indirect benefit to aquatic organisms by improving water quality downstream. Effects to aquatic resources from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.12-14. Package B Transit Components Effects on wildlife from Package B transit components would result from construction of new bus rapid transit stations and queue jumps on US 85. Types of effects would include habitat loss, disturbance during construction, and possibly increased mortality from collisions with buses. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas. Habitat fragmentation would not be an effect from these components. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other • wildlife, and aquatic resources from Package B transit components are described below. Wildlife 3.12-19 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Migratory Birds. Package B transit components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Effects to migratory birds from Package B transit components would include habitat loss and disturbance during construction, if construction occurs during nesting season. Raptors. Effects to raptors from Package B transit components would be limited to potential loss of foraging habitat and disturbance of foraging activity during construction. No raptor nests were identified within 0.5 miles of these components during surveys in 2005, 2006, and 2010. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Package B transit components would not have substantial effects on wildlife movement corridors. No additional lanes that could fragment habitat or affect wildlife crossings are planned as part of these components. Proposed bus rapid transit stations are generally located near existing intersections and would not affect wildlife movement corridors. Increased traffic as a result of operation of additional bus service could result in a slight increase in wildlife collisions with vehicles. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Package B transit components would not have substantial effects to sensitive wildlife habitat. None of the proposed bus rapid transit stations are located in sensitive wildlife habitat such as riparian areas. Operation of additional bus service would affect sensitive wildlife habitat areas due to a slight increase in noise and increased traffic. Other Wildlife. Few substantial effects to other wildlife from the Package B transit components would be expected because this component does not involve construction of new lanes and because proposed bus rapid transit stations are generally located near existing • intersections. Aquatic Resources Including Fish. Adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of Package B transit components would be minimal. Package B transit components would not directly affect aquatic habitat. 3.12.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative includes construction of additional general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on 1-25, construction and implementation of commuter bus and express bus, and implementation of commuter rail. Components of the Preferred Alternative package are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.12-10 through Table 3.12-13 below summarize environmental consequences to wildlife associated with the Preferred Alternative components. Tables 3.12-14 through 3.12-16 provide a comparison of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Preferred Alternative I-25 Improvements Component Overall, direct effects on wildlife from the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would result primarily from road widening and replacement and construction of new bridges. The types of effects from the highway components would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, direct mortality through crushing or burial, and disturbance during construction. Indirect effects include impacts to water quality from increased sedimentation, increased traffic resulting in increased wildlife mortality, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such • Wildlife 3.12.20 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. as mowed rights-of-way adjacent to the existing highway. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component are described below. Migratory Birds. The Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Impacts to riparian areas and wetlands from the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component are quantified in Section 3.8 Wetlands. Types of effects to migratory birds from highway improvements and construction of associated facilities under the Preferred Alternative would be the same as the types of effects from Packages A and B. Raptors. Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would potentially affect 46 existing raptor nests identified within 0.5 mile of the edge of the project area during surveys in 2005, 2006, and 2010. The types of effects to raptors from the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would be the same as the types of effects from Package A and Package B. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would affect five wildlife movement corridors located at the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, Little Dry Creek, and Big Dry Creek (Table 3.12-10). Additionally, increasing the highway width to accommodate general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes would increase wildlife collision risks at the overland wildlife movement corridors between the Little Thompson River and St. Vrain Creek, and west of • Firestone and Frederick. Preferred Alternative highway improvements would have the same types of effects on wildlife movements as Package A and Package B. • Wildlife 3.12.21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.12-10 Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Preferred Alternative Highway Improvement Components Component Effects on Wildlife Movement Corridors 1-25 Safety Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed in this area, and long-term SH 1 to SH 14 effects to wildlife movements from this would be minor(i.e., the same as under the No-Action Alternative). 1-25 General Purpose Lane Construction of additional lanes in this component would increase Improvements: existing fragmentation of habitat by 1-25 by creating greater SH 14 to SH 66 separation between existing habitat on either side of the highway. Bridges at the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers would be replaced with larger structures that would benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall perception of openness by wildlife. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. The size of the St. Vrain Creek bridges at 1-25 would not be modified, and these bridges would continue to provide an underpass for wildlife. Increasing highway width increases wildlife collision risk at the overland wildlife movement corridor between the Little Thompson River and St. Vrain Creek. 1-25 Buffer-separated Tolled Construction of additional lanes in this component would increase Express Lanes: existing fragmentation of habitat by 1-25. The bridge at Little Dry SH 66 to SH 7 Creek would be replaced with a wider structure, and would continue to provide a movement corridor beneath the highway. The • bridge over St. Vrain River would not be modified, and would continue to provide an underpass for wildlife. Increasing highway width increases wildlife collision risk at the overland wildlife movement corridor west of Firestone and Frederick. 1-25 Buffer-separated Tolled Construction of additional lanes would increase existing Express Lanes: fragmentation of habitat by 1-25. The bridge at Big Dry Creek would SH 7 to US 36 be replaced with larger structures that would benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall perception of openness by wildlife. These bridges would continue to provide movement corridors beneath the highway. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would affect 1.88 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 3.12-11. Other sensitive wildlife habitat areas in the project area are primarily riparian and wetland areas associated with major drainageways. These areas correspond closely with movement corridors for big game and other wildlife. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would include removal of riparian tree and shrub vegetation that provides cover for a wide variety of species in addition to the species already discussed. These effects would occur primarily during construction and replacement of bridges and overpasses. Long-term and indirect effects would include increased fragmentation of riparian habitat. Indirect effects of increased noise, light, and human disturbance would reduce available habitat. • Wildlife 3.12.22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-11 Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Preferred Alternative Highway Improvement Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area 1-25 Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed in this component, and SH 1 to SH 14 long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor. 1-25 Improvements: Riparian and wetland habitat at the Cache la Poudre River SH 14 to SH 66 (1.16 acres), Big Thompson River (0.47 acre), and Little Thompson River(0.25 acre)would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. 1-25 Improvements: Sensitive riparian habitat also occurs along St. Vrain River SH 66 to SH 7 near 1-25, but no changes are proposed to the 1-25 bridge over the St. Vrain River. 1-25 Improvements: No effects to sensitive habitat are expected in this SH 7 to US 36 component. Other Wildlife Effects to wildlife from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway rights-of-way would include potential direct effects such as loss of habitat, especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration and other movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long- • term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Aquatic Resources. Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would directly affect 1.54 acres of aquatic habitat. Types of adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would be the same as effects from Packages A and B highway components and would include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Types of indirect effects such as increased sediment loads during construction and long-term effects such as interference with seasonal movements would also be the same as Packages A and B highway components. As with Packages A and B highway components, the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would include water quality ponds which would provide an indirect benefit to aquatic organisms by improving water quality downstream. Preferred Alternative Transit Components Overall, effects on wildlife from transit components of the Preferred Alternative would be similar to the effects from Package A transit components and result primarily from construction of new passing tracks, maintenance roads, replacement and construction of new bridges, and construction of other transit facilities such as new transit stations, the maintenance facility and water quality ponds. Types of effects would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance during construction, and increased mortality from collisions with trains. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as rights-of-way adjacent to the existing tracks, especially for the commuter rail section from Fort Collins to Longmont. • Wildlife 3.12-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The commuter rail segment from Longmont to North Metro would consist of new sets of tracks (passing tracks) at four locations: ► Beginning at 6th Street in Loveland, continuing north to 0.04 mile south of West 57th Street in Loveland. (Length = 3.7 miles) ► Beginning 0.3 mile south of East CR 6c in Berthoud, continuing north to 0.4 mile north of WCR 14. (Length = 4.5 miles) ► Beginning in Longmont 0.05 mile west of Martin Street, continuing north along existing BNSF corridor to 19th Avenue. (Length = 2.3 miles) ► Beginning 0.6 mile west of 1-25, continuing north along existing UPRR to 0.3 mile south of CR 20. (Length = 5.2 miles) The Preferred Alternative design also includes a maintenance road parallel to the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) line between Longmont and Fort Collins. Commuter rail track that is not within the BNSF right-of-way would not include a maintenance road. Wildlife habitat fragmentation and disruption of wildlife movement corridors would result from this component. Indirect impacts resulting from project induced growth, transit oriented development, and carpool lots are discussed within Section 3.1.2 Land Use and Zoning Environmental Consequences of this Final EIS. Effects to migratory birds, raptors, movement corridors, sensitive wildlife habitat areas, other wildlife, and aquatic resources from Preferred Alternative transit components are described • below. Migratory Birds. Preferred Alternative transit components would directly affect wetland, riparian, and grassland habitat for migratory birds. Direct effects to migratory birds could occur from construction of commuter rail and construction of associated facilities such as transit stations. Types of effects to migratory birds from Preferred Alternative transit components and construction of associated facilities under the Preferred Alternative would be the same as the types of effects from Package A. Raptors. Preferred Alternative transit components potentially affect 11 existing raptor nests located during surveys in 2005, 2006, and 2010 within 0.5 mile of the edge of the project area. Types of effects to raptors from Preferred Alternative transit components and construction of associated facilities under the Preferred Alternative transit components would be the same as the types of effects from Package A. Big Game and Movement Corridors. Preferred Alternative transit components potentially affect the seven wildlife movement corridors, five corridors along drainages at Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Little Dry Creek, and two overland corridors located in the Ish Reservoir and Firestone/Frederick areas (Table 3.12-12). Types of effects to big game and movement corridors from Preferred Alternative transit components and construction of associated facilities under the Preferred Alternative transit components would be the same as the types of effects from Package A transit components. • Wildlife 3.12-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-12 Summary of Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from Preferred Alternative Transit Components Component Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors 1-25 Express Bus No additional lanes are proposed and no long-term effects to wildlife movements are expected. US 85 Commuter Bus No additional lanes are proposed and no long-term effects to wildlife movements are expected. Commuter Rail Transit Construction of new passing tracks, fences, and retaining walls would create barriers to east-west wildlife movements. Use of wildlife-friendly fences wherever possible would mitigate this impact. Fencing would create a barrier at the overland crossings near Ish Reservoir and west of Firestone/Frederick. Culverts and bridges, including those at Fossil Creek and the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers and along SH 119 at St. Vrain River and the Little Dry Creek crossing of the rail alignment would become more important for wildlife crossings. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas. Preferred Alternative transit components potentially affect 0.06 acre of sensitive wildlife habitat areas shown in Table 3.12-13. Effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from the commuter rail component of the Preferred Alternative would be the same as that described for Package A commuter rail. • Table 3.12-13 Summary of Effect to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from Preferred Alternative Transit Components Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area 1-25 Express Bus No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and no long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat are expected. US 85 Commuter Bus No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and no long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat are expected. Commuter Rail Transit No direct impacts to riparian and wetland habitat at the Big Thompson River are expected from the rail alignment and bridge replacement. Riparian habitat at the Little Thompson River would not be directly affected by the rail alignment and bridge replacement; however, indirect effects to the Potential Conservation Area designated by CNHP could result. The wildlife crossing area near Ish Reservoir also could be affected by fences and retaining walls, which would create a barrier to wildlife movement. Riparian and wetland habitat at the St. Vrain River(0.06 acre)would be affected by construction of a new bridge crossing. Other Wildlife. Disturbance of degraded habitat in railroad rights-of-way could have effects to wildlife. Potential direct effects would include loss of habitat, especially grassland habitat; disruption of migration, and other movements such as foraging, especially along riparian • corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles or trains. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Wildlife 3.12-25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • Aquatic Resources. No direct effects to aquatic habitat would result from Preferred Alternative transit components because no surface waters would be directly affected by this component. Potential indirect adverse effects to fish and other aquatic organisms during construction of the commuter rail components of the Preferred Alternative would be the same as those described for Package A commuter rail. 3.12.3.5 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO WILDLIFE Table 3.12-14 summarizes direct effects to aquatic habitat (including fish) by component. Table 3.12-15 summarizes effects to raptor nests within 0.5 mile of the project area by component. Raptors may nest in favorable locations year after year, may use different nests in alternate years, or may move to a new nest location in response to changes in the environment. The actual number of nests is likely to be different at the time of construction, but these numbers are representative of the effects that could occur. • • Wildlife 3.12-26 .0 .... • E.) \ \ 0 0 0 0 � \ co RI Tir g = am ir) 4 = 11-1 � \ ® C \ / / ( 2 ea oR a N _ . @ %.. •-• c » ■ ■ h•• ... § a EL 2- $ � 2 k � 2 « 2 > # ■ e At ) � gk � k � c � k O § a 2 E E k_ $ E 7 k a) k o E z Q C s' 2 k f \ / o LiJ = a. a) r iec Co Q. l \ CO o I- X2 0 2 2 3 e o � 0)o \ O O 0 N 0 22� • o a w W O § O / \ U c 0) § Co & a) 2 Q § m aa) 0 § •® o § § ea k . © § § § § t < 2 0 g � O # /2 k / @ % / / . Q. k ®» E « 0 — 2 I 2 f 774 g a aI au) a aq / / k ■ �� D \ Do Do \ 0 2 ■ 7 — 2 — ) ( a) r... k O . 0 co col oI o = of CO CtoIX0 2as a col 2 « ww HCl) Rm Ru e cLL = U_ 0 Coio u.. — q CO # . u To - I I I m CD 05 I- » cr 0 U m § 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 3 GO \ � a o 2 4.4 GLi 0 ii . � $ t 0 d 7 \ f @ < As ■ E S o $ k a •. E .. o / p - c « � > � Ekm �/ � &% e & gE\ 2g � \ 0 c Zk a= z § $ � EwDq UW / � 22G \ a � © /T. (n — o2 — 222 ° " � 0 $ 2 � � (0 O a. & E ,_ g o # 7 § 8 2 0 i m E E _ E w q § 450 u k \ O O_w / w c 00002 / x co � � CA CPA � UUQuQ _ u ir « cu q n ; 0 - q @ # @ < < < < 71 a. < < < < I- eti E $ Co o O _ U z le / 2 % 2ro 2 % a kf $ § : N � � CD II ICD k2 ■ - L \ c ' W » & ■ � a § CO � $ _2 / / . 0 g ' \ / \ "0 z e E 2 E -0 E 0. E % •$ E 2 k cc k I- Z - Q esLA > \ � 0 K / Cr) E 0 # x a cu o kg \ ® ea w / k a 0. � ? D 0 l- E o 0 U 2 0 $ k \ O O O Nt A § 2 2 2 % k . . 4 U C.60 2 Co 0 C ••C a) / c 2 c 03 o 4 o § 2 B § a) 7 k 2 . . C U 2 c 4) c « u .1) co 0 2 E al o as - % & $ < / Li? a 9 # @ © 2 � 2 % LL © / Bw o « 2 ' 2 z o f 2 m \ ? 2 co c 0 z oI om aw a: R ' 5 5 2 U i ? Lux w2 Lux m = ' id 'E & �� k � k � k \ A / @ / g 3 $ / I / $ / w co � E � I � t a. Z CL _ & n 1" 2 2 © Q e 2 co ± co z 4 m CO I- A n % q O - 2 $ § z . zo ■ W f m 2 I- % a 0 0 iii .c c § O § k ± c .c § § E o $ e 7 c O o .. k cL > # o0oo0 � - •• E % § c kmf(D $ m$ LuD/ A � \ � oI3 / % 2 O ; ImcLEo � Eoc c.) "4 � i � t 2 c ct. o ° ° CO ■ = — & o = >, EMN �� § Jk § § 2 \ % \ § [ 3EmE $ 2 0 - o $$ � � 33 $ $ w � 3 � \ / k \ k 2 ■ O q ■ . © . � J r f � _ 0. E / • CO Q. i < < < Q,U < < < < Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.12-16 summarizes the effects to wildlife habitat by component, including acres of migratory bird habitat, number of raptor nests, numbers of movement corridors, acres of other sensitive habitat, and acres of other aquatic habitat. Table 3.12-16 Overall Summary of Effects to Wildlife Habitat by Component Number of Number of Sensitive Aquatic Component Raptor Movement Wildlife Habitat Nests Corridors Habitat(acres) (acres) Package A Highway Components 36 6 1.93 1.82 Package A Transit Components 13 7 0.08 0 Total Package A: 49 13 2.01 1.82 Package B Highway Components 43 7 2.35 2.25 Package B Transit Components 0 0 0 0 Total Package B: 43 7 2.35 2.25 Preferred Alternative Highway 46 7 1.88 1.54 Improvements Components Preferred Alternative Transit 11 7 0.06 0 Components Total Preferred Alternative: 57 14 1.94 1.54 • 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts to wildlife and fish have been incorporated into the build packages, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. 3.12.4.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE No additional mitigation measures will be proposed under the No-Action Alternative. 3.12.4.2 PACKAGE A, PACKAGE B, AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Migratory Birds Requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) (MBTA) will be followed. CDOT has proposed special provisions creating a new Standards and Specification Section 240 — Protection of Migratory Birds to address the requirements of the MBTA. These provisions will ensure that consistent, appropriate and reasonable measures are taken to prevent injury to and death of migratory birds and the CDOT activities are compatible with current federal and state wildlife laws and regulations. • CDOT will implement the following mitigation measures for projects that will have an impact to migratory birds: Wildlife 3.12.29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► Tree trimming and/or removal activities will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. In Colorado, most nesting and rearing activities occur between April 1 and August 31. However, since some birds nest as early as February, a nesting bird survey will be conducted by a biologist before any tree trimming or removal activities begin. ► Bridge or box culvert work that may disturb nesting birds will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. No bridge or box culvert work will take place between April 1 and August 31. If work activities are planned between these dates, nests will be removed (before nesting begins) and appropriate measures taken to assure no new nests are constructed. ► Clearing and grubbing of vegetation that may disturb ground nesting birds will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. If work activities are planned between April 1 and August 31, vegetation will be removed and/or trimmed to a height of six inches or less prior to April 1. Once vegetation has been removed and/or trimmed, appropriate measures, i.e. repeated mowing/trimming, will be implemented to assure vegetation does not grow more than six inches. Raptors CDOW has developed recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for new surface occupancy within certain distances of nest sites of several raptor species. Surface occupancy is defined as human-occupied buildings and other structures such as oil and gas wells, roads, railroad tracks, or trails. The USFWS typically considers that implementation of the CDOW buffers and seasonal restrictions fulfill compliance requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty • Act for raptors. A raptor nest survey will be conducted prior to project construction to identify raptor nests and nesting activity in the vicinity of the proposed project. If an active raptor nest is found on site, the recommended buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by the CDOW (CDOW, 2008) for raptors will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. If raptor nests will be impacted by the proposed project, specific mitigation measures for impacts to nesting raptors will be developed in coordination with the CDOW and USFWS prior to construction. If disturbance of raptor nests is unavoidable, mitigation measures will include the construction of artificial nests in suitable habitat or enhancement of prey habitat. Artificial nests will be constructed in the same general area as impacts. Big Game and Movement Corridors Impacts to big game will be minimized through construction of crossing structures that will be designed to maintain wildlife movement corridors. In areas identified as important movement corridors, the following measures will be recommended. These mitigation measures may not be feasible at all wildlife crossing areas due to cost or engineering issues. The locations where these mitigation measures will be implemented will be identified as the preferred alternative is identified and final design is undertaken. To maximize use of movement corridors by wildlife, bridge spans and culverts will have the following features: ► A minimum clearance height of 10 feet and width of 20 feet for deer (Ruediger and DiGiorgio, 2007). Crossing structures sized for deer will be adequate for most common wildlife. The recommended minimum culvert diameter is 48 inches for medium-sized • carnivores and 36 inches for small carnivores (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). Wildlife 3.12-30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► A minimum "openness ratio" of 0.75. The "openness ratio" is defined as the height of the structure multiplied by the structure width and divided by the structure length, measured in meters. A minimum openness ratio of 2.0 is recommended by some researchers (Reudiger and DiGiorgio 2007). ► Shrubs and vegetative cover placed at bridge underpass openings to attract wildlife and provide a "funnel effect". ► For structures that periodically convey water, ledges or shelves to provide passage alternatives during high water. ► To avoid human disturbance to wildlife, trails will not be placed near wildlife crossing structures. The wildlife corridor near Ish Reservoir does not occur along a drainage. The proposed rail profile in the vicinity of this wildlife crossing follows existing grades and there are no proposed retaining walls at this location. The initial design recommendation to a regional transit agency is to omit the perimeter fencing for the appropriate segment necessary to maintain the wildlife corridor. If, during final design, it is determined that it will not be possible to omit the perimeter fencing, the design team will investigate profile adjustments to determine the feasibility of establishing a box culvert wildlife crossing underpass of suitable size, length, and substrate composition to accommodate the range of wildlife encountered in this corridor, or use of fencing that is not a barrier to wildlife. Other recommended design elements include: • ► Avoiding the placement of lighting near the crossing structures ► Avoid attracting wildlife to the right-of-way by keeping roadside vegetation height to a minimum Use of these design elements will be specified where appropriate during final design. Along the commuter rail corridor, CDOT will seek permission from the regional transit authority to minimize the use of chain link fencing in areas that are heavily used by wildlife. If a fence is constructed, these will be of a type that is not a barrier to wildlife structures such as one-way ramps will be placed at regular intervals along the corridor to allow animals that may get inside the fence to exit the highway corridor. Measures will be taken to ensure that fences are maintained. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas Impacts to other sensitive wildlife habitat areas have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. Proposed mitigation measures for wetlands and riparian areas will mitigate for impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat, which tends to be located along streams and rivers (refer to Section 3.8 Wetlands). Mitigation measures for big game and wildlife crossings will also benefit these areas. Other Wildlife Many other wildlife species, such as small and medium sized mammals, reptiles, and • amphibians use the same migration corridors used by larger animals, and will benefit from mitigation measures for wildlife movement corridors described above. Effects to other wildlife from impacts to grasslands will be mitigated by mitigation measures described for vegetation. Wildlife 3.12-31 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. . Other wildlife habitat areas are generally located along major drainageways. Mitigation measures for impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and Preble's habitat will also benefit these areas. Aquatic Resources (Including Fish) The project will comply with Colorado SB 40, which requires any agency of the State of Colorado to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries. An application for SB 40 wildlife certification would be submitted to CDOW. CDOW will review the plans to ensure that the project adequately protects fish and wildlife resources, and will provide recommendations if the proposed project will adversely affect a stream or its riparian corridor. To offset temporary impacts to aquatic species from habitat disturbance, aquatic habitats will be restored after construction activities have ceased. The following design measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish: ► Riffle and pool complexes will be maintained and/or created. ► Natural stream bottoms will be maintained. ► Culverts will be partially buried and the bottom will be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient. ► Culverts to be replaced will be replaced with one of equal or greater size. • ► Culverts will not have grates, impact dissipaters, or any other features that will impede fish movement. ► To avoid erosion, induced siltation, and sedimentation, sediment/erosion control BMPs shall be placed during each phase of construction. Upon completion of slope, seeding in combination with mulch/mulch tackifier or blanket shall occur within the limits set in Section 208 of CDOT specifications. ► Erosion control blankets will be "wildlife friendly," consisting of 100 percent biodegradable materials. ► Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. ► No new fish passage barriers will be created. ► Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where possible. An example is the drop structure located east of the frontage road at 1-25 and St. Vrain Creek, which is planned to be modified to facilitate fish passage as part of this project. CDOT's water quality temporary and permanent BMPs will be applied, and will include the installation of mechanisms to collect, contain, and/or treat roadway run-off. Mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to wetlands, Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, and Preble's, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger or more numerous culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, will also improve fish habitat. • Wildlife 3.12-32 • NORTH I-25 PRI EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 13 Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species • • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.13 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND STATE SENSITIVE SPECIES This section addresses federally listed threatened and endangered species, state What's in Section 3.13? sensitive species (threatened, endangered, 3.13 Threatened, Endangered,and State and species of special concern), and other Sensitive Species federally protected species. One federally 3.13.1 Regulatory Framework listed threatened wildlife species, and two 3.13.2 Affected Environment federally listed plant speices potentially 3.13.2.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate occur in the regional study area. Species 3.13.2.2 Other Federally Protected 3.13.1 Regulatory Framework Species 3.13.2.3 State Listed Threatened, Colorado Department of Transportation Endangered, and Species of (CDOT) projects must comply with federal, 3.13.2.4 Other Special Concern Sensitive Wildlife state, and local laws and regulations Species protecting wildlife species including: 3.13.2.5 Threatened and Endangered ► Plant Speces The Endangered Species Act of 1973 1531 et seq.) 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences (16USC 3.13.3.1 No-Action Alternative 3.13.3.2 Package A • ► The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 3.13.3.3 Package B Act of 1940, as amended 3.13.3.4 Preferred Alternative (16 USC 668-668d) 3.13.3.5 Summary of Impacts to Federally Protected Species ► Colorado State Statute 33 3.13.3.6 Summary of Impacts to (CRS Ann. §§ 33-2 to 102-106) Non-Federally Protected Species IN addition, CDOT has a prairie dog policy 3.13.4 Indirect Impacts for All Build General that applies to all CDOT projects. Federal Purpose Lanes,Commuter Rail,and and state laws and CDOT policies are Tolled Express Lanes described below. 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures 3.13.5.1 No-Action Alternative Federally listed threatened and endangered 3.13.5.2 Package A, Package B, and species are protected under the the Preferred Alternative Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Potential effects on a federally listed species or its habitat resulting from a project with a federal action require consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA. Projects that may result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat for a federally listed species also require consultation with the USFWS. With this Final EIS, a Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) has been prepared (see Appendix C). In January 2004, CDOT, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife (CDOW), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the USFWS, and public and private partners agreed on a :Shortgrass Prairie Initiative" as an alternative way to address species • impacts in the eastern third of the state. The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative (initiative) provides programmatic clearance for CDOT activities on the existing road network in the eastern third of Colorado for the next 20 years. Covered transportation projects include: 1) bridge repairs for Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • all existing bridges; 2) approximately 4,310 miles of resurfacing/overlays and accompanying shoulder improvements; 3) maintenance along existing transportation corridors; and 4) safety, reconstruction, capacity, and other transportation improvements (USFWS, 2004; Venner, 2001). The initiative covers three federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species, as well as 29 species of concern. Species covered by the initiative that potentially occur within the project area include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana subsp. coloradensis), black-tailed prairie dog (Gynomys ludovicianus), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), northern leopard frog (Rana pipien), plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus), and brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni). Species explicitly not covered in the Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) (USFWS, 2000) include black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) (Preble's), and Ute ladies tresses' orchid (Spironthes diluvialis) (ULTO). The programmatic BO was amended in February 2008 to address the change in status for the bald eagle (USFWS, 2008). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Act) (16 USC 668-668d) includes several prohibitions not found in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), such as molestation or disturbance. In 1962, the Act was amended to include the golden eagle. As directed by CRS 33 (CRS Ann. §§ 33-2 to 102-106), the Colorado Wildlife Commission issues regulations and develops management programs implemented by the CDOW for wildlife species not federally listed as threatened or endangered. This includes maintaining a list of state threatened and endangered species. CDOW also maintains a list of species of • concern, but these species are not protected under CRS 33. Additional CDOT and local guidelines and recommendations applicable to wildlife include the CDOT Prairie Dog Policy, which consists of a series of steps that include avoiding disturbance to prairie dog colonies. More detail on all regulations pertaining to wildlife resources is provided in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO, 2008) and Addendum (ERO, 2011a). 3.13.2 Affected Environment Threatened and endangered species were reviewed during initial screening of alternatives using existing information from readily available sources. Existing information was reviewed and special concerns related to the project were identified through coordination and consultation with USFWS, CDOW, and Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) personnel, and local open space management agencies. Once the proposed project area was identified, detailed habitat evaluations were performed in the project area based on fieldwork. Additional reviews were conducted of existing information regarding Preble's (Zapus hudsonius preblei), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies. Effects to the mountain plover were originally evaluated in the Draft EIS, however, the proposed listing as a threatened species was withdrawn May 12, 2011. Thus, this species will not be further evaluated as a proposed federally listed species in this Final EIS. Specific methods used for data collection are described in detail in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO, 2008). • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.2 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.13.2.1 FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife species that potentially occur in the project area are shown in Table 3.13-1 (USFWS, 2010). Table 3.13-2 lists species potentially affected by water depletions to the Platte River system (USFWS, 2010). Table 3.13-1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area Common Scientific Status* Habitat Potential to Occur in North 1-25 Name Name Project Area Preble's Zapus FT Riparian areas along Known to occur in riparian habitat meadow hudsonius major drainages with on Big Thompson River at 1-25 jumping preblei adequate shrub and and likely to occur in riparian mouse tree cover. habitat on Little Thompson River at 1-25; suitable habitat is present on other major drainages, but is unlikely to be occupied based on trapping data. *Status key: FT...Federally listed as threatened No candidate species for listing under the ESA occur in the project area. Source: USFWS, 2010. • Table 3.13-2 Federally Listed Wildlife Species Potentially Affected by Depletions to the Platte River System Common Scientific Potential to Occur in Name Name Status* Habitat North I-25 Project Area Whooping Grus americana FE Platte River and Not present, but may be affected crane surrounding habitat in by depletions to the Platte River Nebraska system Least tern Sternula FE Platte River and Not present, but may be affected antillarum surrounding habitat in by depletions to the Platte River Nebraska system Piping plover Charadrius FT Platte River and Not present, but may be affected melodus surrounding habitat in by depletions to the Platte River Nebraska system Pallid Scaphirhynchus FE Platte River in Nebraska Not present, but may be affected sturgeon albus by depletions to the Platte River system *Status key: FE...Federally listed as endangered FT....Federally listed as threatened No candidate species for listing under the ESA occur in the project area. Source: USFWS, 2010. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Other federally listed species that occur in the northern Colorado Front Range were evaluated in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO, 2008) and were eliminated from further consideration because of the lack of suitable habitat. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Based on site visits and past trapping records, a number of riparian areas in the project area offer potential habitat for Preble's. These areas include the Big Thompson River, Cache la Poudre River, Dry Creek, Fossil Creek, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, South Platte River, and Spring Creek. Trapping surveys have found Preble's in riparian habitat near the Big Thompson River less than one mile downstream from 1-25 (USFWS, 2005b). No trapping surveys have been conducted within one mile of 1-25 on the Little Thompson River; however, trapping surveys have found Preble's more than one mile downstream from 1-25 (USFWS, 2005b). Preble's is assumed to be present in riparian habitat along the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Other drainages in the project area were surveyed extensively for Preble's in the past, and available information indicates these sites are unlikely to support populations of Preble's. Critical habitat was designated in Larimer County; however, no designated critical habitat for this species occurs in the project area (see Figure 3.13-1). 3.13.2.2 OTHER FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES Bald Eagle The bald eagle was recently removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered • species, but continues to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Six active bald eagle nests occur within 3 miles of the sections of 1-25 proposed for widening or the proposed rail alignment. These nests continue to be monitored by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) Bald Eagle Watch Program (RMBO 2008, 2009, 2010). Nesting data from each nest between 2008 and early 2010 are provided below: ► Environmental Learning Center(ELC) Nest—A pair of adult bald eagles attempted to nest near this site in 2009 and failed before constructing the existing nest at its present location. The eagles returned in 2010 and successfully hatched two young. ► Windsor Nest—This site has been used by nesting bald eagles since 2002. The nest fledged two eaglets in 2008, and one eaglet in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). The nest successfully hatched one young in 2010. ► Berthoud Nest—A pair of eagles nested at this site in 2007. Nesting success at this site was unknown in 2008, and two eaglets were fledged in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). The nest successfully hatched three young in 2010. ► Longmont/St. Vrain Nest—This nest produced one fledgling in 2008 and two fledglings in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). The nest successfully hatched two young in 2010. ► Delcamino/Boulder Creek Nest—This nest has been active since 2003. This nest fledged three eaglets in 2008 and none in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). While this nest was unsuccessful in 2009, it successfully hatched one young in 2010. ► Thornton Nest—This nest fledged two eaglets in 2008 and one eaglet in 2009 • (RMBO, 2008, 2009). The nest successfully hatched two young in 2010. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.134 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. In addition to the six nest sites, a pair of bald eagles has been observed exhibiting courtship and prebreeding behavior in the northeast section of Fossil Creek Reservoir (RMBO, 2010) (Figure 3.13-1). CDOW mapping shows another active nest approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the intersection of Highway 60 and Larimer County Road 17 (NDIS, 2010). This site is approximately 1.5 miles west of the proposed rail line and is occupied by golden eagles rather than bald eagles. This nest had successfully produced young golden eagles every year for at least six years as of 2006 (Ryel pers. comm., 2006). CDOW defines bald eagle roost sites as groups of trees or individual trees used by less than 15 eagles for diurnal and/or nocturnal perches. CDOW defines communal roost sites as groups of trees or individual trees used by more than 15 eagles for diurnal and/or nocturnal perches. CDOW has identified roost sites at several locations adjacent to or within 1 mile of the project area (see Figure 3.13-1). These sites are: ► Fossil Creek Reservoir Communal Roost. CDOW has mapped a communal roost site at Fossil Creek Reservoir about 0.5 mile west of 1-25 (NDIS, 2006). CDOW considers the reservoir as a whole when mapping the limits of the roost. CDOW extends the roost boundary about 0.25 mile from the edge of the reservoir, not including Swede Lake, because most of the larger trees surrounding the reservoir are used by eagles in winter. Specific roost locations and levels of use can vary depending on prey availability, weather, and other factors. • ► St. Vrain Creek and Boulder Creek Roost. CDOW has mapped as a bald eagle roost site the section of St. Vrain Creek from west of US 287 to east of 1-25, and the section of Boulder Creek from the confluence of Boulder Creek with St. Vrain Creek upstream to a point about five miles from the confluence. This area was active as a winter roost in February and March 2005 (ERO, 2008). ► Boulder Creek Communal Roost. A communal roost site is about 3 miles southwest of the intersection of 1-25 and SH 119 on Boulder Creek (NDIS, 2006). 3.13.2.3 STATE-LISTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED,AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN State threatened, endangered, and species of special concern with potentially suitable habitat in the regional study area are listed in Table 3.13-3 and Table 3.13-4 and are described below. CRS 33 states that it is unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the state list of threatened and endangered wildlife (CRS Ann. §§ 33-2-105). While species of special concern are not protected by CRS 33, CDOT is committed to their conservation. Some state- listed species were dropped from further consideration because of the lack of suitable habitat (ERO, 2008). • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.13-1 Bald Eagle Roost/Nests and Possible Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat in the Regional Study Area LEGEND I c ~ Study Corridors i ELC Nest /\/ Highways J _.._.. W611npmn,. ' _../\\/ Arterial Roads • 1851 ��an Regional Study Area � Windsor • Nest City Boundaries (., . Pierce ,O Cities & Towns in Project Area i ;- •.` . = Bald Eagle Winter Range Fossil Creek to � �n � 14 ReservoirI. • Bald Eagle Active Nest Sites Communal Co r• F4tJ. 4? (0.5 Mile Buffer) ',iv . • Bald Eagle Unknown Nest Sites _- , ' ` /r e ,`$°"°"4" �°`" �. (0.5 Mile Buffer) t 287 .41 ,IWA Bald Eagle Winter Forage A ;1-4.4-;:%::".,„. tncis r et e i -fir?�L lucerne . rx, Bald Eagle Winter Concentration . c; 1 '%-. Bald Eagle Summer Forage 7:.A - ' 4 • 7 I Bald Eagle Roost Sites ~� Se 0n C''' 34 � . g -�"�` . Bald Eagle Communal Roost ' .. -' ` 'L , Evans 1W A - f/ fijI � i: . . -,t et i. Ber.houo Nest '�� `'411 /4 F.61:1 .AC7- . mi 5 se H .•- grinr. er or / SSt Vram/Boulder Creek I inlaid or Communal Roost oft- Glcresr III S �. tt Rallertk___ i i - 66_, rxte- \\ .21r%. -- r IE ! t . ^• �'•` ii• `� ' DelcanvndlBouider Creek Nest i . � �: t 1 Y fly] pj r • Longmont/St Vram Nest F 'r ' '� ; 19' t. • • � I I r • _-�sitdinfif / � 4. ' �•► _J , 4 .._ `fill Gulf:In ."1:417 DacuAres• Fat Lupt. c/•. 0 I �• �!p< •:r' ere i Boulder Creek Communal Roos! ; 1�► ' a ��". r•:` •�... 7 ik . .11111 Warr. lc;_ I Boulder O - I I - \ O Lafayette ."‘.11 • ` ---i a _- • LrounNeey eN r f \`��;442.. v A make in l �. &oomnNd sL� � HeMe,sOn`� Ntit glen n / J ' ---1 \ Thornton Nest - r_ T—I \ ' eir— 4; / T Dn ( ae •— SI N �~ . 25 ! Figure 3 „\*(d. 1 North I-25 EIS Bald 0 2 4 6 8 10 itttttttttttl ' Miles ,"--•--•f Eagle NDIS Data I Source CDOW (NDIS 2009. ERO 2010) f 1 \ 111 e III Threatened, Endangered, and State Sensitive Species 3.13.6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.13-3 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Terrestrial) Common Scientific Potential to Occur in Name Name Status* Habitat North I-25 Project Area Mammals Black-tailed Cynomys SC Open space and vacant Known to occur throughout the prairie dog Iudovicianus land project area Swift fox Vulpes velox SC Shortgrass prairie Potentially occurs east of 1-25 in Larimer and Weld counties Townsend's Plecotus SC Caves and mineshafts, Potentially occurs in urban areas big-eared bat townsendii urban areas, and and riparian areas riparian areas Birds Western Athene ST Nests in prairie dog Known to occur in the prairie dog burrowing owl cunicularia colonies colony at US 34 and SH 257; possibly occurs in other prairie doq colonies Ferruginous Buteo regalis SC Nests in grasslands Likely to occur in prairie dog hawk and often forages in colonies in winter prairie doq colonies Great blue Ardea Non& Nests in colonies in Known to occur;three heron heron herodius groves of trees on nesting areas occur in or near major rivers and the project area reservoirs, and forages in all aquatic habitats • Mountain Charadrius SC Open, flat tablelands Unlikely—very little suitable Plover montanus and shortgrass prairie habitat for mountain plovers vegetation (<6 inches); occurs in the project area; breeds in areas with plovers are vulnerable to human 30% bare ground, and vehicle disturbance and including grazed there are no recent records of grasslands, fallow breeding mountain plovers in the fields, and prairie dog project area along any towns. alternative. Reptiles/Amphibians Common Thamnophis SC Streams, ditches, and Known to occur on major gartersnake sirtalis ponds streams and rivers and other aquatic habitats in the project area Northern Rana pipiens SC Streams, lakes, ponds, Known to occur in Cache leopard frog marshes, and wet la Poudre, Big Thompson, meadows St. Vrain, and South Platte drainages 'Key to CDOW species ranking system: SC...Special Concern ST...State Threatened 'Great blue huron is not listed on the state list, but is protected by the MBTA. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.7 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.13-4 State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area (Aquatic) Common Name Scientific Status* Habitat Potential to Occur in Name North I-25 Project Area Fish Common shiner Notropis SE Cool, clear streams Known to occur in St. Vrain cornutus with moderate gradient, Creek and South Platte River gravelly bottoms, and shady areas Brassy minnow Hybognathus ST Cool, clear streams Known to occur in Cache hankinsoni with abundant aquatic la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, vegetation and mud or St. Vrain Creek, and South gravel substrate Platte River Iowa darter Etheostoma SC Lakes with rooted Known to occur in Cache exile aquatic vegetation and la Poudre and Big Thompson streams with cool, clear rivers, and St. Vrain Creek water, undercut banks, and vegetation extending from the bank into the water Stonecat Noturus flavus SC Streams with strong Known to occur in St. Vrain current and rubble, Creek rocks, or woody debris Invertebrates Cylindrical papershell Anodontoides SC Mud and sand in small Potentially occurs in small ferussacianus creeks streams in the project area • *Key to CDOW species ranking system: SE..State Endangered ST..State Threatened SC..Special Concern Sources: CDOW, 20010;NDIS, 2010. 3.13.2.4 OTHER SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES A rare stonefly (Mesocapnia frisonl) is the only CNHP-listed species with potentially suitable habitat in the regional study area (ERO, 2007). In Colorado, this species is known to occur only in the Little Thompson River (CNHP, 2005). In the project area, the stonefly is known to occur in the reach of the Little Thompson River that includes the crossing at US 287 and the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway (CNHP, 2005). 3.13.2.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES The USFWS (2006) has identified the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana subsp. Coloradensis) and ULTO (Spiranthes diluvialis) as potentially occurring in all counties within the regional study area (see Table 3.13-5). As such, field surveys were conducted during the summer/fall of 2005 and 2006 to assess if populations of these species or potential habitat for these species existed in the project area. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.13-5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Regional Study Area Scientific Acres of Common Name Name Status* Habitat Existing Potential Habitat Gaura Zone between wetlands and Colorado butterfly neomexicana FT upland prairies in subirrigated 5.01 acres plant subsp. drainage bottoms of active, coloradensis meandering streambeds Ute ladies'-tresses Spiranthes FT Open riparian areas,floodplains, 19.19 acres orchid diluvialis and alluvial meadows *Status key FT....Federally listed as threatened Sources: USFWS, 2010. Colorado Buferfly Plant The Colorado butterfly plant (CBP) is a perennial evening primrose that is approximately 20 to 32 inches in height with reddish, pubescent stems and a narrow, elongated inflorescence of white flowers, which turn pink or reddish with age. The primary habitat for this species is generally 5,000 to 6,400 feet in elevation in a zone between wetlands and upland prairie in the subirrigated, alluvial soils of drainage bottoms with an active, meandering stream. • Potential habitat for CBP was identified within riparian areas along the St. Vrain, Little Thompson, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers where these drainages are crossed by 1-25 or the proposed commuter rail alignment; however, no populations or individuals of this species were observed during field surveys. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid The ULTO is a perennial, terrestrial orchid characterized by 8- to 20-inch stems, a thick tuberous root system, narrow leaves, and a white flowering stalk. The stalk is comprised of a spike arrangement at the top of the stem with few to many small white or ivory flower clusters. The primary habitat for ULTO is typically found in elevations below 6,500 feet in open riparian areas, alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and edges of springs and lakes. Potential habitat for ULTO was identified in riparian habitat along the St. Vrain, Little Thompson, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers where these drainages are crossed by 1-25 or the proposed commuter rail alignment. These sites are within the 100-year floodplain of tributaries to the South Platte River and are described in greater detail in the BA. Wetlands in Boulder County also are considered potential ULTO habitat, and potential habitat was identified at an unnamed ditch at SH 66 and North 115th Street, Ish Ditch at the BNSF alignment, and a site with wetlands on the BNSF alignment near the Divide Reservoir in Boulder County. No ULTO populations or individuals were observed during field surveys. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.9 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences This section describes the consequences of the No-Action Alternative and Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative to federally listed threatened and endangered species; state-listed threatened, endangered, and species of concern; and other sensitive species. Given the large scale of the project, and the large size of the regional study area, effects were estimated on a broad scale using data from a variety of sources including USFWS, CDOW, and project-specific data collected by CDOT contractors. Direct effects to sensitive species or their habitat were quantified where possible by measuring acres of habitat within the project limits of disturbance using Geographic Information System (GIS) overlays. ► Preble's Habitat. Effects to Preble's habitat were estimated by assuming that Preble's is present in riparian habitat within 1 mile upstream and downstream of known capture sites. Riparian vegetation was defined based on vegetation data (Section 3.10 Vegetation). ► Bald Eagle Habitat. Effects to bald eagle habitat were estimated based on the number of nests within 0.5 mile of the project area and the acreage of summer or winter forage areas within the project area affected by a given project component. ► Platte River Species Habitat. Given the absence of suitable habitat in the regional study area, none of the alternatives would have direct effects on the whooping crane, least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, or western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara). • Depletions to the Platte River system due to CDOT activities are addressed by the State of Colorado's participation in the South Platte Water Related Activities Program (SPWRAP) through the "Memorandum of Agreement for Implementation and Operation of the Colorado Portion of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Plan (PRRIP)" (SPWRAP, 2009). All water depletions are considered an adverse effect to four downstream species (whooping crane, interior least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon). With regard to possible effects from water depletions to the Platte River system, potential project elements that could result in depletions include: ► Detention facilities ► Dust abatement activities ► Wetland mitigation ► Structure backfill ► Embankment and ABC Compaction ► Concrete needed for roadway, slope paving, embankments, inlets, guardrails, sidewalks, and curb and gutter Because the amount of water to be used cannot be anticipated at the EIS level of project development, a PRRIP template biological assessment will be submitted to the USFWS during project-specific Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Project-specific biological assessments will estimate the water usage for that particular phase or project. Following • consultation and the USFWS's issuance of a biological opinion, project-level depletions will be monitored annually by FHWA/CDOT and reported to the USFWS. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. In the meantime for this EIS, water usage resulting from the construction of Package A, Package B and all three phases of the Preferred Alternative were estimated based on the current level of design for the various components of the alternatives (see Table 3.13-6). These components included, as appropriate, embankment, roadway, bridge structures, retaining walls, sound walls, general construction water, express bus stations, commuter bus stations, commuter rail stations access roads, at-grade crossings, and maintenance facilities. The estimates are for the entire construction phase of each alternative. The following assumptions were made for the construction process and construction items that would require water use: ► Five feet of embankment per square yard of pavement. Detailed earthwork calculations are not available at the current level of highway design, so this assumption was made by comparing the overall length of the roadway construction and the number of interchanges that would be reconstructed and arriving at an average height of embankment. ► Earthwork for the commuter rail was estimated for Package A at the Draft EIS design level and these values are assumed to be within a similar range for the Preferred Alternative. The earthwork quantities for the double track design for Package A are similar to the single track, passing track and maintenance road design for the Preferred Alternative. ► The median height for each range of retaining wall heights and an assumed thickness of one foot was used to calculate the retaining wall areas for both roadway and commuter rail. Roadway sound walls were also assumed to be one-foot thick. • ► Quantities for aggregate base course for roadway and gravel road for commuter rail were calculated using 133 lb/cf. ► The maintenance facilities for bus and rail include construction items for buildings and site work. All site paving is assumed to be eight-inch concrete pavement. The buildings were assumed to have 12-foot high concrete block walls and a four-inch thick concrete slab. ► The number of at-grade rail crossings was determined for the commuter rail, but the roadway design for each crossing has not been completed. Quantities were estimated using similar crossing designs from RTD FasTrack projects. The items include concrete pavement, aggregate base course and curb and gutter. ► Bus and rail station quantities for concrete pavement, sidewalk and curb and gutter were calculated during design. ► Concrete truck washout values assume 30 gallons of water for washout of a 10 CY truck. ► The General Construction Water value was provided by RTD and includes water use for compaction, demolition and dust palliative. The estimate was based on the use of two 4000 gallon water trucks per day for the duration of the project. If the commuter rail is constructed as one continuous project the assumption is that it would be a six- year schedule. This same assumption applies to the roadway portion of the project. The bus portion of the project assumes a four-year schedule. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 3.13-6 Alternative Water Usage from Construction Water Usage (acre feet) ITEM Preferred Alternative Package A Package B Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Highway Improvements 1,141 1,141 321 608 212 1,141 Bus 20 27 14 14 0 28 Commuter Rail 125 0 0 35 90 125 Total 1,286 1,168 335 657 301 1,294 ► Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Habitat. Effects to black-tailed prairie dogs were quantified based on mapping of prairie dog colonies supplied by CDOW and verified by ERO using current aerial photography and field visits conducted in 2006 and updated in 2010. Effects to other sensitive species often associated with prairie dogs, such as western burrowing owls, were estimated from the effects on prairie dog colonies. ► Blue Heron Habitat. Effects on great blue herons were estimated based on data from CDOW, showing known nesting areas for this species (NDIS, 2010). ► Northern Leopard Frog/Gartersnake Habitat. Effects to potential habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes were estimated by assuming that habitat for these species coincides with wetlands and riparian vegetation. All types of wetland and riparian habitat, including open water, were considered potential habitat for these two species. • ► Sensitive Aquatic Species Habitat. Effects to sensitive aquatic species, including common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell, were estimated based on acres of impacts to streams where these species are known to occur or have the potential to occur. ► Colorado Butterfly Plant/ Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid Habitat. Effects to the CBP and ULTO were identified based on existing areas of potential habitat for these species as identified by the USFWS and through the habitat assessments conducted in 2006. 3.13.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative includes major and minor structure rehabilitation, replacement or rehabilitation of existing pavement, and minor safety modifications by 2030. These are actions that would take place regardless of whether any of the proposed improvements in Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative occur. The No-Action Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. The No-Action Alternative would not affect threatened and endangered species. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.13.2, would continue. However, with increasing traffic volumes and continuing commercial and residential development in the project area, some effects to threatened, endangered, and special concern species would be expected. Effects from existing traffic volumes would include mortality from vehicle collisions and disturbance from vehicle lights and noise. With increasing traffic and congestion, roadway pollution and sediment runoff may increase, which could eliminate sections of potential habitat and • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. increase the possibility for noxious weed invasions. Existing habitat fragmentation due to 1-25 would continue. Effects from continued development would include the direct loss of habitat and increasing habitat fragmentation from development. 3.13.3.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose and auxiliary lanes on 1-25, construction and implementation of a commuter rail, and implementation of commuter bus service. The alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. A discussion of impacts for each Package A component is provided below. Highway Components Overall, the effects to threatened and endangered species from Package A highway components would result primarily from road widening, replacement and construction of new bridges, and installation of new lights. The types of effects from highway components include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, disturbance during construction, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Most disturbances would occur in permanently degraded areas such as mowed ROW adjacent to the existing highway. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Package A highway components A-H2 and A-H3 would disturb approximately 0.81 acre of riparian habitat that provides potential occupied habitat for Preble's at the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. The temporary • disturbance to riparian habitat during bridge replacement at these two rivers could affect Preble's habitat on these drainages. Direct effects to Preble's could include the loss of potential habitat, mortality from crushing by construction equipment, or disruption of hibernation during winter. Any new street lights near bridges could increase the susceptibility of Preble's to predation. Indirect effects could include increased habitat fragmentation and decreased use of the area as a movement corridor due to the increased width of 1-25 bridge crossings of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Based on the information above, Package A highway components may affect Preble's or its occupied habitat. Conservation measures developed in coordination with USFWS would ensure this alternative would not adversely affect Preble's or its habitat. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-7. Bald Eagle. Package A highway components would potentially affect bald eagle nests, roosts, and foraging habitat: ► Current data indicate that the new ELC nest occurs within 0.42 mile of the Package A highway components as of the 2009 -2010 breeding season; A breeding pair of bald eagles attempted to nest at this location in 2009 and failed. In 2010, the pair established a new nest 0.47 mile from the existing 1-25 corridor and within 0.42 mile of the proposed highway improvements in Package A. The nest is on property owned by the Box Elder Water and Sanitation District, and was selected by the eagles despite extensive human activities consisting of regular train traffic on the nearby railroad tracks, aggregate mining and restoration, traffic on 1-25 and local roads, and • recreational activities along the river. The CDOW recommends buffers and seasonal restrictions within 0.5 mile of an active bald eagle nest from November 15 to July 31. However, CDOW also recognizes that buffers can be altered based on site-specific Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • conditions, such as vegetation screening and individual tolerances to disturbance. The bald eagles at the ELC nest initiated a nest and began breeding activities, and successfully fledged two young, in the midst of extensive human activities described above, indicating a high level of tolerance for existing levels of activity and human disturbance. Package A highway components would also be partially buffered by topography and vegetation. Other new breeding pairs of bald eagles could also construct nests within 0.5 mile of the project area in the future, or a pair of eagles using one of the existing nests could relocate to a new nest closer to the project area. If construction activities occur within 0.5 mile of an active nest during the courting or breeding season, the effects could include behavioral disturbance and potential nest abandonment. ► Package A highway components would affect 186.50 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major streams and rivers in the project area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts include the loss of foraging habitat from road widening or other project components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-8. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package A highway components would directly affect 45.22 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Direct effects to black-tailed prairie dogs could include being crushed by machinery or being displaced during construction. Implementation of CDOT's prairie dog policy would result in avoidance or minimization of most impacts to prairie dogs, especially direct mortality due to construction (CDOT, 2009). Prairie dogs would • also be indirectly affected by the loss of habitat within the highway ROW as a result of construction and habitat fragmentation. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Western Burrowing Owl. Package A highway components would affect 45.22 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide potential nesting habitat for this species. Direct effects to burrowing owls could include being forced to abandon their nests if construction occurs during the time the owls are present in Colorado from March 1 to October 31, or during the nesting season from April 1 to July 31 (CDOW, 2008). No burrowing owls are known to nest in the project area associated with Package A highway components. For the purposes of comparing impacts between packages, the impacts to prairie dog colonies are considered representative of potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Great Blue Heron. Package A highway components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas recommended by CDOW. Great blue herons would be affected by the loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas. Impacts to great blue heron foraging areas would be similar to impacts for other riparian species. Indirect impacts could include potential changes in aquatic species composition or abundance that affect the availability of heron prey. Impacts to aquatic resources (and thus impacts to herons) would be small (see Section 3.7 Water Resources). • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package A highway components would affect 15.90 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. These two species would be affected by the loss or fragmentation of riparian areas and wetlands as a result of construction. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Indirect effects could include habitat fragmentation and reduced movement between habitat patches on opposite sides of new or widened bridges or culverts. Indirect effects to these two species would result from temporary declines in water quality from the project, but would be expected to be short-term (see Section 3.7). The decline in water quality could suffocate and/or poison the adults, young, and eggs of northern leopard frog and common gartersnake. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-10. State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species. Package A highway components would directly affect 0.30 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell (Table 3.13-12). Potential adverse effects to these species during construction would include the temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, and concrete box culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species. Working directly in streams would increase sediment loads, which could change water temperature and contribute to direct mortality through crushing individuals or smothering and killing eggs. Working directly in streams could • also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through the use of construction best management practices (BMPs). Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, including deicer, and would increase the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials, which could affect threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species. Package A highway components include construction of new water quality ponds, which would result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream compared to the No-Action Alternative. Constructing new concrete box culverts or lengthening existing culverts would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat could be potentially improved through the replacement of existing culverts with more numerous culverts or free-spanning bridges. The removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit sensitive fish species. Removal of the existing drop structure on St. Vrain Creek just downstream from 1-25 is planned as part of the project and would remove a barrier to small fish movement. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other sensitive species (swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Packages A, B and the Preferred Alternative highway components are described in Table 3.13-11. Colorado Butterfly Plant. No populations or individuals were observed within the project area during the field surveys; therefore, no direct impacts to this species would be anticipated. However, because 2.25 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed by construction activities, • presence/absence surveys will be conducted prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to ensure that this alternative would not adversely affect the Colorado Butterfly plant. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-15 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The addition of a highway lane on either side of the existing roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. No populations or individuals were observed within the project area during the field surveys; therefore, no direct impacts to this species would be anticipated. However, because 4.15 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed by construction activities, presence/absence surveys will be conducted prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to ensure that this alternative would not adversely affect the Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. Transit Components Effects to federal- or state-listed threatened and endangered species from the transit components of Package A would result primarily from construction of new tracks, replacement and construction of new bridges, and construction of other transit facilities such as new transit stations and water quality ponds. Most disturbances would occur in permanently degraded areas, such as ROW adjacent to the existing tracks, especially for the double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont (A-T1). The commuter rail segment from Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton (A-T2) would consist of a new double-tracked commuter rail line and would be next to existing highways in areas that are less disturbed than other portions of the project area. Impacts to threatened, endangered, and special concern species from the Package A transit components are described below. • Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Package A transit components would not affect occupied Preble's habitat. Although potentially suitable habitat is present along several drainages affected by Package A transit components, there have been no recent captures of Preble's within most of the suitable habitat; therefore, Package A transit components would have no effects to Preble's or its habitat. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-7. Actual impacts may be different at the time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. The effects shown in Table 3.13-7 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Bald Eagle. Package A transit components potentially affect bald eagle nests, roosts, and foraging habitat in the following ways: ► Current data indicate that no active bald eagle nests occur within 0.5 mile of the Package A transit components as of the 2009— 2010 breeding season; however, several bald eagle nests are known to occur near the project area. New breeding pairs of bald eagles could construct nests within 0.5 mile of the project area in the future, or a pair of eagles using one of the existing nests could relocate to a new nest closer to the project area. If construction activities occur within 0.5 mile of an active nest during the courting or breeding season, the effects could include behavioral disturbance and potential nest abandonment. ► Package A transit component A-T2 could affect the bald eagle roost on St. Vrain Creek. The proposed rail alignment from Longmont to Thornton would run parallel to SH 119 on the north side of the highway, crossing St. Vrain Creek via a new bridge north of SH 119. • Approximately 0.08 acre of riparian habitat that provides suitable perching or roosting sites for bald eagles would be directly affected at this location, and 5.05 acres within the Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 0.25-mile buffer around eagle roosting habitat would also be affected. Although it is unlikely that bald eagles actually roost immediately adjacent to SH 119— a busy highway, the loss of riparian habitat in this area would reduce the amount of available roosting habitat further downstream. Construction of the commuter rail line in this area could also lead to indirect impacts to roosting bald eagles through increases in noise, vibration, and visual disturbance such as lights from passing trains. Bald eagle roosting areas change from year to year, and new roosting areas could become established or existing roosts could be abandoned by the time of construction; therefore, the effects described above are considered representative of effects that could occur. ► Package A transit components would affect 17.19 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major streams and rivers in the project area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts would include the loss of foraging habitat from road widening or other project components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat from Package A are summarized in Table 3.13-8. Package B highway components may affect Preble's or its occupied habitat. Conservation measures developed in consultation with the USFWS would ensure this alternative would not adversely affect Prebles' or its habitat. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package A transit components would directly affect 15.1 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Direct effects to black-tailed prairie dogs could include being crushed by machinery or being displaced during construction. Implementation of CDOT's prairie dog policy would result in avoidance or minimization of most impacts to prairie dogs, • especially direct mortality due to construction (CDOT, 2005d). Prairie dogs would also be indirectly affected by the loss of habitat within the railroad ROW as a result of construction and by habitat fragmentation. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Western Burrowing Owl. The Package A transit component A-T1 would affect 15.1 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls. The types of direct and indirect effects would be the same as for Package A highway components. No burrowing owls are known to nest in the project area associated with Package A transit components. For the purposes of comparing impacts between alternative packages, impacts to prairie dog colonies are considered representative of potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Great Blue Heron. Package A component A-T1 would result in disturbance to 3.34 acres within the 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer around a great blue heron nesting area at Ish Reservoir. The 0.31-mile buffer is based on CDOW recommendations. No direct impacts to great blue heron nesting areas would occur. Great blue herons would be affected by the loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas. Great blue herons could be affected by noise, light, or human encroachment within the 0.31-mile buffer during nesting season, which is approximately March 15 through July 31. The effects could include nest abandonment or reduced nesting success. The impacts to great blue heron foraging areas would be similar to impacts for other riparian and aquatic species. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package A transit components would affect 4.24 acres of potential habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-10. State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species. Package A transit components would directly affect 0.08 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell (Table 3.13-11, Section 3.13.3.4). Potential adverse effects to these species during construction would include the temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Accidental spills of hazardous materials in streams could occur during construction, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species. Working directly in streams would increase sediment loads, which could indirectly change water temperature and cover eggs. Working directly in streams could also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through the use of construction BMPs. The Package A transit components include construction of water quality ponds, which would result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Construction of new culverts, lengthening existing culverts, or widening existing bridges would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species by replacing the natural streambed with concrete and by increasing shade. Stream habitat could be potentially improved through the replacement of existing • culverts with more numerous culverts or free-spanning bridges. The removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit sensitive fish species. Table 3.13-12 summarizes the direct effects to habitat for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative. In addition to direct impacts to habitat, the project would lead to increases in impervious surface areas, which would lead to increased flows during storm events. Increases in flows could in turn lead to increased channelization and incision of streams, sedimentation, and loss of riparian vegetation (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). These impacts could result in degraded habitat conditions for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species. The impacts would be greater for Package B than Package A because Package B would result in a greater increase in impervious surfaces. In addition to effects to habitat from increased flows, increases in impervious surfaces in the project area could also result in increased loads of contaminants in streams. The Driscoll water quality model predicted that loads of several contaminants reaching aquatic habitat after storm events would increase under all three build alternatives compared to the No-Action Alternative, with the Preferred Alternative generally higher than Package A but less than Package B (refer to Section 3.7 Water Resources). Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other sensitive species (swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Package A transit components are described in Table 3.13-11. Colorado Butterfly Plant. No CBP populations or individuals were observed in the project area • during the field surveys; therefore, no direct impacts to this species would be anticipated. No areas of potential habitat were identified for this species within the transit component corridors; Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. however, since considerable time will lapse between when these surveys were conducted and when construction will begin, presence/absence surveys for this species will be necessary prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to endure that this alternative would not adversely affect Colorado Butterfly Plant. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. No ULTO populations or individuals were observed during habitat assessments; therefore, no direct impacts would be anticipated to this species. No areas of potential habitat were identified for this species within the transit component corridors; since considerable time will lapse between when these surveys were conducted and when construction will begin, presence/absence surveys for this species will be necessary prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to endure that this alternative would not adversely affect Ute Ladies'-tresses orchid. 3.13.3.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. The alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Impacts from each Package B component are described below. Highway Components • Overall, the effects on threatened and endangered species from Package B highway components would result primarily from road widening, and replacement and construction of new bridges. The types of effects from highway components would be the same as Package A highway components. The effects to threatened, endangered, and species of concern from Package B highway components are described below. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Package B highway components would disturb approximately 0.80 acre of riparian habitat that provides potentially occupied habitat for Preble's at the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. The types of direct and indirect effects would be the same as Package A highway components. Package B highway components may affect Preble's or its occupied habitat. Conservation measures developed in consultation with the USFWS would ensure this alternative would not adversely affect Prebles' or its habitat. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-7. The actual impacts may be different at the time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. The effects shown in Table 3.13-7 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Bald Eagle. Package B highway components that would potentially affect bald eagle nests, roosts, and foraging habitat are: ► Current data indicate that no active nests occur within 0.5 mile of the Package B highway components as of the 2009—2010 breeding season. The types of impacts would be the same as Package A highway components if a pair of bald eagles were to nest within 0.5 mile of the project area. • ► Package B would affect 2.01 acres of roost habitat along the Big Thompson River at 1-25. The types of impacts from lighting would be the same as Package A highway components. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • ► Package B highway components would affect 230.68 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. The types of impacts would be the same as Package A highway components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat are summarized in Table 3.13-8. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package B highway components would directly affect 91.14 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Western Burrowing Owl. Package B highway components would affect 91.14 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. No burrowing owls are known to nest in the project area associated with Package B highway components. For the purposes of comparing impacts between packages, the impacts to prairie dog colonies are considered representative of potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Great Blue Heron. Package B highway components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the CDOW-recommended 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas. Indirect effects to great blue herons would be similar to impacts from Package A highway components. The impacts would include the loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas and potential • changes in aquatic species composition or abundance that affect the availability of heron prey. Impacts to aquatic resources (and thus impacts to herons) would be small (see Section 3.7 Water Resources). Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package B highway components would affect 20.76 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. The types of effects to these two species would be the same as Package A highway components. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-10. State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species. Package B highway components would directly affect 0.35 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. As with Package A transit components, the construction of water quality ponds as part of the project would likely result in a net benefit to water quality and to sensitive aquatic species by improving water quality in streams downstream from the project area. Table 3.13-12 summarizes direct effects to habitat for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other sensitive species (swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Package B highway components are summarized in Table 3.13-11. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Colorado Butterfly Plant. No CBP populations or individuals were observed in the project area during the field surveys; therefore, no direct impacts to these species would be anticipated. However, because 2.42 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed by construction activities, presence/absence surveys will be conducted prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to ensure that this alternative would not adversely affect the Colorado Butterfly plant. The improvements on either side of the existing roadway would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. No ULTO populations or individuals were observed in the project area during the field surveys; therefore, no direct impacts to this species would be anticipated. However, because 4.85 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed by construction activities, presence/absence surveys will be conducted prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to ensure that this alternative would not adversely affect the Ute Ladies'-tresses orchid. Transit Components Overall, effects on threatened, endangered, and special concern species from Package B transit components would result from construction of new transit stations, parking lots, and • queue jumps. The types of impacts would include habitat loss and disturbance during construction. Most habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas. The effects to threatened, endangered, and special concern species are described below. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. No effects to Preble's would occur from Package B transit components because no occupied habitat would be affected. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-7. Bald Eagle. No effects to bald eagle nests, roosts, or foraging habitat would occur from Package B transit components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-8. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. Package B transit components would directly affect 6.25 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Western Burrowing Owl. Package B transit components would affect 6.25 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. No burrowing owls are known to nest in the project area associated with Package B highway components. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. • Great Blue Heron. Package B transit components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the CDOW-recommended 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.21 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. Package B transit components would affect 0.52 acre of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. The types of effects to these two species would be the same as Package A highway components. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-10. State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species. Package B transit components would not affect habitat for state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell. Table 3.13-12 summarizes direct effects to habitat for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other sensitive species (swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) from Package B transit components are summarized in Table 3.13-11. Colorado Butterfly Plant. The types of effects on CBP would be the same as Package A transit components. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. The types of effects on ULTO would be the same as Package A transit components. 3.13.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE • The Preferred Alternative includes construction of additional general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on 1-25, construction and implementation of commuter bus and express bus service, and implementation of commuter rail. The components of the Preferred Alternative are described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Tables 3.13-7 through 3.13-12 provide a comparison of Package A, B, and the Preferred Alternative. Detailed descriptions of the impacts of the Preferred Alternative are provided in the PBA (ERO, 2011b) Preferred Alternative 1-25 Improvements Component Direct effects on wildlife from the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component would result primarily from road widening and replacement and construction of new bridges. The types of effects from the highway components would include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and disturbance during construction. Indirect effects include impacts to water quality from increased sedimentation, increased traffic resulting in increased wildlife mortality, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Most permanent habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas such as mowed ROW adjacent to the existing highway. The effects to threatened, endangered, and special concern species from the Preferred Alternative highway improvements component are described below. The effects on threatened, endangered, and special concern species from the Preferred Alternative highway components would result primarily from road widening and replacement and construction of new bridges. The types of effects from highway components would be the same as Package A and Package B highway components. The effects to threatened, endangered, and species of concern from the Preferred Alternative highway components are • described below. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-22 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. The Preferred Alternative highway components would disturb approximately 0.72 acre of potentially occupied Preble's habitat at the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. The types of direct and indirect effects would be the same as Package A highway components. The Preferred Alternative would result in less impacts (0.72 acre) to occupied Preble's habitat than either Package A (0.81 acre) or Package B (0.80 acre) The Preferred Alternative highway improvement components may affect Preble's or its occupied habitat. Conservation measures developed in consultation with the USFWS would endure this alternative would not adverserly affect Preble's or its habitat. The potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-7. The actual impacts may be different at the time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. The effects shown in Table 3.13-7 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Bald Eagle. The Preferred Alternative highway components that would potentially affect bald eagle nests, roosts, and foraging habitat are: ► Current data indicate that one active nest occurs within 0.5 mile of the Preferred Alternative highway components as of the 2009 - 2010 breeding season. The types of impacts would be the same as Package A highway components if the ELC bald eagles continue to nest within 0.5 mile of the project area or if a new nest is established within 0.5 mile of the Preferred Alternative highway components. • ► The roost at Fossil Creek Reservoir would not be adversely affected by the Preferred Alternative highway components because the proposed work in this area consists of upgrading interchange and frontage roads, and because the roost is separated from the highway by existing and proposed development. The types of impacts from lighting would be the same as Package A highway components. ► The Preferred Alternative highway components would affect 211.05 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. The types of impacts would be the same as Package A highway components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat are summarized in Table 3.13-8. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. The Preferred Alternative highway components would directly affect 70.98 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components, but the magnitude of effects is more than Package A (45.22 acres) and less than Package B (91.14 acres). The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Western Burrowing Owl. The Preferred Alternative highway components would affect 70.98 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls. The types of effects would be the same as Package A and Package B highway components, but the magnitude of effects is more than Package A (45.22 acres) and less than Package B (97.39 acres). No burrowing owls are known to nest in the project area associated with the Preferred Alternative highway components. For the purposes of comparing impacts between packages, the impacts to prairie dog colonies are considered representative of potential impacts to burrowing owl • habitat. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-23 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Great Blue Heron. The Preferred Alternative highway components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the CDOW- recommended 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas. Indirect effects to great blue herons would be similar to impacts from Package A highway components. The impacts would include the loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas and potential changes in aquatic species composition or abundance that affect the availability of heron prey. Impacts to aquatic resources (and thus impacts to herons) would be small (see Section 3.7 Water Resources). Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. The Preferred Alternative highway components would affect 13.40 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. The types of effects to these two species would be the same as Package A highway components. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-10). Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other sensitive species (swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk)from the Preferred Alternative highway components are summarized in Table 3.13-11. State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species. The Preferred Alternative highway components would directly affect 0.29 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell. The types of effects would be the same as • Package A highway components. As with Package A transit components, the construction of water quality ponds as part of the project would likely result in a net benefit to water quality and to sensitive aquatic species by improving water quality in streams downstream from the project area. Table 3.13-12 summarizes the direct effects to habitat for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative. Colorado Butterfly Plant. No CBP populations or individuals were observed in the project area during the field surveys; therefore, no direct impacts to these species are anticipated. However, because 2.42 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed by construction activities, presence/absence surveys are recommended will be conducted prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to ensure that this alternative would not adversely affect the CBP. The improvements on either side of the existing road would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. No ULTO populations or individuals were observed in the project area during the field surveys; therefore, no direct impacts to this species are anticipated. However, because 4.85 acres of potential habitat would be disturbed by construction activities, presence/absence surveys will be conducted prior to construction. If this species is found during surveys, conservation measures would be developed in consultation with the USFWS to ensure that this alternative would not adversely affect the ULTO. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-24 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Transit Components The effects on threatened, endangered, and special concern species from the Preferred Alternative transit components would result from construction of new transit stations, parking lots, and queue jumps. The types of impacts would include habitat loss and disturbance during construction. Most habitat loss would occur in permanently degraded areas. The effects to threatened, endangered, and special concern species are described below. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. No effects to Preble's would occur from the Preferred Alternative transit components because no occupied habitat would be affected. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-7. Bald Eagle. No effects to bald eagle nests would occur from the Preferred Alternative transit components, although the alternative approaches the 0.5 mile nesting buffer of the Longmont/St Vrain nest. The Preferred Alternative transit components would affect 20.15 acres of bald eagle foraging habitat. The rail transit crossing at St. Vrain Creek would affect 5.05 acres within the 0.25-mile buffer around eagle roosting habitat. The types of impacts would be the same as Package A highway components. Potential direct effects to bald eagle forage habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 3.13-8. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. The Preferred Alternative transit components would directly affect • 15.43 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Western Burrowing Owl. The Preferred Alternative transit components would affect 15.43 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide potential nesting habitat for burrowing owls. The types of effects would be the same as Package A highway components. No burrowing owls are known to nest in the project area associated with Preferred Alternative highway components. The effects to occupied prairie dog habitat from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-9. Great Blue Heron. The Preferred Alternative transit components would not result in direct effects to great blue heron nesting areas because no impacts would occur within the CDOW- recommended 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from the edge of great blue heron nesting areas. Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake. The Preferred Alternative transit components would affect 4.09 acres of habitat for northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. The types of effects to these two species would be the same as Package A highway components. Direct effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3.13-10. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern. Potential impacts to other sensitive species (swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk)from the • Preferred Alternative transit components are summarized in Table 3.13-11. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-25 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species. The Preferred Alternative transit components would affect 0.09 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species such as common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, and cylindrical papershell. Table 3.13-12 summarizes the direct effects to habitat for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species from Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Colorado Butterfly Plant. The types of effects on CBP would be the same as Package A transit components. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid. The types of effects on ULTO would be the same as Package A transit components. 3.13.3.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES Table 3.13-7 summarizes potential direct effects to Preble's habitat for Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative. Actual impacts may be different at the time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. The effects shown in Table 3.13-7 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Coordination with the USFWS has been ongoing and in July 2011, a Programmatic Biological Assessment was submitted to the USFWS with a request for a Biological Opinion (BO). The BO is required prior to the Record of Decision. Because of continuous coordination with the USFWS on this project, the risk of a BO that would modify the project is low. • • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 3.13-7 Summary of Effects to Occupied Preble's Habitat by Component Component Acres Component Acres Component Acres of of of Habitat Habitat Habitat Package A Package B Preferred Highway Components Highway Components Alternative Highway Improvements Components AH-1 Safety 0 BH-1 Safety 0 1-25 Improvements 0.72 Improvements: Improvements: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 AH-2 General 0.53 BH-2 Toiled Express 0.52 Purpose Lanes: Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 AH-3 General 0.28 BH-3 Tolled Express 0.28 Purpose Lanes: Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 AH-4 Structure 0 BH-4 Tolled Express 0 Upgrades: Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A 0.81 Total Package B 0.80 Total Preferred 0.72 Highway Highway Alternative Highway: . Package A Transit Package B Transit Preferred Components Components Alternative Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: 0 B-T1 BRT: 0 1-25 Express Bus 0 Fort Collins to Fort Longmont Collins/Greeley to Denver A-T2 Commuter Rail: 0 B-T2 BRT: 0 US 85 Commuter 0 Longmont to Fort Collins to Bus North Metro DIA AT-3/ Commuter Bus: 0 Commuter Rail 0 AT-4 Greeley to Transit Denver and DIA Total Package A 0 Total Package B 0 Total Preferred 0 Transit: Transit: Alternative Transit Total Package A: 0.81 Total Package B: 0.80 Total Preferred 0.72 Alternative • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.13.3.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO NON-FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES Table 3.13-8 through Table 3.13-12 summarize effects to non-federally protected threatened, endangered, and special concern species by component. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major streams and rivers in the regional study area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts from road widening or other project components could include the loss of foraging habitat or displacement of eagles from foraging habitat. Direct loss of bald eagle foraging habitat is based on both winter and summer forage habitat mapped by CDOW (NDIS, 2010). Table 3.13-8 summarizes effects to bald eagle foraging habitat by component. Table 3.13-8 Summary of Effects to Bald Eagle Forage Habitat by Component Component Forage Component Forage Component Forage Habitat Habitat Habitat' Package A Package B Preferred Highway Components Highway Components Alternative Highway Improvements Components AH-1 Safety 0 BH-1 Safety 0 1-25 Improvements 211.05 Improvements: Improvements: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 AH-2 General 166.42 BH-2 Tolled Express 187.05 Purpose Lanes: • Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 AH-3 General 20.08 BH-3 Tolled Express 20.31 Purpose Lanes: Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 AH-4 Structure 0 BH-4 Tolled Express 23.32 Upgrades: Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A 186.5 Total Package B 230.68 Total Preferred 211.05 Highway: Highway: Alternative Highway: Package A Transit Package B Transit Preferred Components Components Alternative Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: 6.18 B-T1 BRT: 0 1-25 Express Bus 0 Fort Collins to Fort Collin/Greeley Longmont to Denver A-T2 Commuter Rail: 4.92 B-T2 BRT: 0 US 85 Commuter 4.24 Longmont to Fort Collins to DIA Bus North Metro AT-3/ Commuter Bus: 6.09 Commuter Rail 15.91 AT-4 Greeley to Transit Denver and DIA Total Package A 17.19 Total Package B Transit: 0 Total Preferred 20.15 Transit: Alternative Transit Total Package A: 203.69 Total Package B: 230.68 Total Preferred 231.20 Alternative • 'Forage habitat is defined by NDIS,2010 Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 3.13-9 summarizes direct effects to black-tailed prairie dog habitat by component. Many prairie dog colonies in the project area are within private property that is likely to be developed in the near future. Other prairie dog colonies are adjacent to undeveloped land and have the potential to expand in the future. Prairie dog colonies are also occasionally affected by sylvatic plague, which may wipe out a colony or greatly reduce the number of prairie dogs. For all of these reasons, the area of occupied prairie dog habitat affected by the project is likely to be different from current conditions at the time of construction. The quantities in Table 3.13-9 are considered representative of impacts that could occur. Table 3.13-9 Summary of Effects to Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Occupied Habitat by Component Component Acres Component Acres Component Acres Occupied Occupied Occupied Habitat Habitat Habitat Package A Package B Preferred Highway Components Highway Alternative Components Highway Improvements Components AH-1 Safety 0 BH-1 Safety 0 1-25 70.98 Improvements: Improvements: Improvements SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 AH-2 General Purpose 24.50 BH-2 Tolled Express 34.12 • Improvements: Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 AH-3 General Purpose 20.72 BH-3 Tolled Express 20.43 Improvements: Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 AH-4 Structure 0 BH-4 Tolled Express 36.58 Upgrades: E-470 Lanes: to US 36 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A 45.22 Total Package B 91.14 Total Preferred 70.98 Highway: Highway: Alternative Highway: Package A Transit Package B Transit Preferred Components Components Alternative Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: 0.11 B-T1 BRT: 6.25 I-25 Express 6.69 Fort Collins to Fort Bus Longmont Collins/Greeley to Denver _ A-T2 Commuter Rail: 7.67 B-T2 BRT: 0 US 85 1.31 Longmont to Fort Collins to Commuter Bus North Metro DIA AT-3/ Commuter Bus: 7.32 Commuter Rail 7.43 AT-4 Greeley to Transit Denver and DIA Total Package A 15.10 Total Package B 6.25 Total Preferred 15.43 Transit: Transit: Alternative • Transit Total Package A: 60.32 Total Package B: 97.39 Total Preferred 86.41 Alternative Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13.29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation0 Table 3.13-10 summarizes effects to potential northern leopard frog and common gartersnake habitat by component. Table 3.13-10 Summary of Effects to Potential Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake Habitat by Component Component Habitat' Component Habitat' Component Habitat 1 (acres) (acres) (acres) Package A Package B Preferred Highway Components Highway Components Alternative Highway Improvements Components AH-1 Safety 0 BH-1 Safety 0 1-25 13.40 Improvements: Improvements: Improvements SH 1 • SH 14 SH 1 to SH 14 AH-2 General 10.62 BH-2 Tolled Express 14.27 PurposeLanes: Improvements: SH14toSH6O SH 14 to SH 60 AH-3 General 5.28 BH-3 Tolled Express 5.52 Purpose Lanes: Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 AH-4 Structure 0 BH-4 Tolled Express 0.97 Upgrades: Lanes: II E-470 E-470 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A 15.90 Total Package B 20.76 Total Preferred 13.40 Highway: Highway: Alternative Hi.hway: Package A Transit Package B Transit Preferred Components Components Alternative Transit Components A-T1 Commuter Rail: 0.75 B-T1 BRT: 0.52 1-25 Express 0.71 Fort Collins to Fort Bus Longmont Collins/Greeley to Denver A-T2 Commuter Rail: 3.49 B-T2 BRT: 0 US 85 0 Longmont to Fort Collins to Commuter Bus North Metro DIA AT-3/ Commuter Bus: 0 Commuter Rail 3.38 AT-4 Greeley to Transit Denver and DIA Total Package A 4.24 Total Package B 0.52 Total Preferred 4.09 Transit: Transit: Alternative Transit Total Package A: 20.14 Total Package B: 21.28 Total Preferred 17.49 Alternative 'Wetlands and Riparian vegetation are considered potential habitat for these species III Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.13-11 summarizes impacts to other state threatened, endangered, and species of concern. Table 3.13-11 Summary of Effects to Other State Threatened, Endangered,and Species of Special Concern Potentially Affected by Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative Common Name Type of Effect Relative Magnitude of Effect Swift fox Potential loss of foraging habitat Low—disturbed areas would be low and displacement during and quality habitat for this species, on fringes after construction. of occupied range. Townsend's big- Potential loss of foraging habitat Low—no caves or mines that could eared bat and displacement during and provide roosting or hibernation sites after construction. would be affected. Ferruginous hawk Potential loss of foraging habitat. Low—no nesting habitat would be disturbed Table 3.13-12 summarizes direct impacts to habitat for state threatened, endangered, and special concern aquatic species by component. Table 3.13-12 Summary of Direct Effects to Habitat for State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species from Packages A, B, • and the Preferred Alternative Aquatic Habitat Acres Component (Species Potentially Activity Directly Affected) Affected Package A Highway Components A-H1: Safety Improvements: N/A N/A 0 SH1toSH14 A-H2: General Purpose Cache la Poudre River Replace existing bridges at 1-25 0.15 Improvements: SH 14 to (brassy minnow and Iowa northbound, 1-25 southbound, and SH 60 darter) Harmony Road Big Thompson River Replace existing bridges at 1-25 0.15 (Iowa darter) northbound, 1-25 southbound, and I-25 service road A-H3: General Purpose St.Vrain Creek No activity at existing bridges over 1-25 0 Improvements: SH 60 to (common shiner, brassy E-470 minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat) A-H4: Structure Upgrades: N/A N/A 0 E-470 to US 36 Total Package A Highway: 0.30 Package A Transit Components A-T1: Commuter Rail: Big Thompson River Construct new tracks and crossing 0 Fort Collins to Longmont (Iowa darter) adjacent to existing crossing A-T2: Commuter Rail: St. Vrain Creek Construct new rail alignment and bridge 0.08 Longmont to North Metro (common shiner, brassy on north side of SH 119 minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat) • A-T3/A-T4: Commuter Bus: N/A N/A 0 Greeley to Denver and DIA Total Package A Transit: 0.08 Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.13-12 Summary of Direct Effects to Habitat for State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species from Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative (contd) Aquatic Habitat Component (Species Potentially Activity Acres Directly Affected) Affected Package B Highway Components B-H1: Safety improvements: N/A N/A 0 SH1toSH14 B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes: Cache la Poudre River Replace existing bridges at 0.20 SH 14 to SH 60 (brassy minnow and Iowa 1-25 northbound, 1-25 darter) southbound, and Harmony Road Big Thompson River Replace existing bridges at 0.15 (Iowa darter) 1-25 northbound, 1-25 southbound, and 1-25 service road B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes: St. Vrain Creek No activity at existing bridges 0 SH 60 to E-470 (common shiner, brassy over I-25 minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat) B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: N/A N/A 0 E-470 to US 36 Total Package B Highway: 0.35 Package B Transit Components B-T1: BRT: Fort N/A N/A 0 • Collins/Greeley to Denver B-T2: BRT: Fort N/A N/A 0 Collins/Greeley to DIA Total Package B Transit: 0 Preferred Alternative Highway Components 1-25 Improvements: Cache la Poudre River Replace existing bridges at 0.15 SH 14 to SH 66 (brassy minnow and Iowa 1-25 northbound, 1-25 darter) southbound, and Harmony Road 1-25 Improvements: SH 60 to Big Thompson River Replace existing bridges at 0.14 SH 7 (Iowa darter) 1-25 northbound, 1-25 southbound, and 1-25 service road St. Vrain River No action at existing 0 (common shiner, brassy bridges at 1-25 minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat) Total Preferred Alternative Highway: 0.29 Preferred Alternative Transit Components Commuter Rail Transit Big Thompson River Construct new tracks and 0.03 (Iowa darter) crossing adjacent to existing crossing St. Vrain River Construct new rail 0.06 (common shiner, brassy alignment and bridge on the minnow, Iowa darter, and north side of SH 119 stonecat) Total Preferred Alternative Transit: 0.09 • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-32 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 E15 • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.13-13 summarizes the direct impacts to threatened, endangered, other federally- protected and state sensitive species for Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative by component. Table 3.13-13 Summary of Direct Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Other Federally-Protected and State Sensitive Species by Component, in Acres Preble's Bald Bald Prairie N. Leopard Sensitive Component Habitat Eagle Eagle Dogs Frog and C. Fish Forage Roosts Gartersnake Species Package A Highway Components 0.81 186.50 1.98 45.22 15.90 0.30 Package A Transit Components 0 17.19 5.05 15.1 4.24 0.08 Total of Effects for Package A 0.81 203.69 7.03 60.32 20.14 0.38 Package B Highway Components 0.80 230.68 2.01 91.14 20.76 0.35 Package B Transit Components 0 0 0 6.25 0.52 0 Total of Effects for Package B 0.80 230.68 2.01 97.39 21.28 0.35 Preferred Alternative Highway 0.72 211.05 0 70.98 13.40 0.29 Components Preferred Alternative Transit 0 20.15 5.05 15.43 4.09 0.09 Components Total of Effects for Preferred 0.72 231.20 5.05 86.41 17.49 0.38 Alternative • 3.13.4 Indirect Impacts For All Build General Purpose Lanes, Commuter Rail, and Tolled Express Lanes The addition of a highway lane on either side of the roadway, the installation of commuter rail lines, or the installation of interchanges or commuter stations would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. Soil disturbance from construction equipment would create favorable conditions for weedy species to further establish in areas of potential habitat for threatened or endangered species. The invasion of noxious weeds into potential habitat is one of the greatest threats to species of special concern. Other indirect impacts include the decrease or elimination of upland tree and/or shrub buffers between the proposed roadway and vegetation areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent waterways. Buffers filter pollutants before they reach wetlands, streams, and lakes, as well as provide habitat for wildlife. Because the proposed roadway and rail alignments primarily follow existing lines, existing vegetation communities including potential habitat for threatened and endangered species currently receive indirect effects from roadway, railway, and maintenance activities. However, the magnitude of indirect effects could increase with implementation of Package A or Package B. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.13.5 Mitigation Measures This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to threatened and endangered species, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to threatened and endangered species were incorporated into the alternative, including avoiding sensitive habitat, maintaining existing alignments where practicable, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. The proposed project area falls within the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative (initiative), an agreement between CDOT, CDOW, FHWA, and USFWS. The initiative included a BA and conservation measures for FHWA funding of CDOT's routine maintenance and upgrade of existing transportation corridors in eastern Colorado for a 20-year period beginning in 2003. The BA includes all of 1-25 within the project area. A BO was issued by the USFWS, which covers the bald eagle and 29 species of concern (USFWS, 2003). The BO includes a list of measures to minimize effects to the bald eagle, including protecting off-site shortgrass prairie habitat and implementation of on-site BMPs. The BO also includes conservation measures for sensitive, nonlisted species including black-tailed prairie dog; burrowing owl; native fish; and mussels (including brassy minnow, common shiner, plains minnow, and cylindrical papershell); and northern leopard frog. The BO lists BMPs for each of these species and provides that if any of these species are listed, appropriate protective measures will be incorporated into the BO. The initiative does not cover the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) (MBTA) will be followed. CDOT has • proposed special provisions creating a new Standard and Specification Section 240— Protection of Migratory Birds to address the requirements of the MBTA. These provisions will ensure that consistent, appropriate and reasonable measures are taken to prevent injury to and death of migratory birds and the CDOT activities are compatible with current federal and state wildlife laws and regulations. Specific mitigation recommendations, in addition to those in the initiative, are described below. 3.13.5.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE No additional mitigation measures would be proposed under the No-Action Alternative. Routine maintenance and upgrades to 1-25 will fall under the initiative BO described above and mitigation measures described in the BO apply. 3.13.5.2 PACKAGE A, PACKAGE B,AND THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Mitigation measures for occupied Preble's habitat may be required as part of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS for impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species. Because the project will be built over a period of many years, CDOT will reinitiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS when future phases are initiated to determine whether additional surveys for PMJM are needed at that time. Mitigation measures will focus on avoidance and minimization of impacts during construction and include the following: • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. ► Construction within occupied Preble's habitat at the Little Thompson and Big Thompson rivers and any areas found to be occupied by Preble's by future surveys will be limited to Preble's inactive season (November through April). ► Visible barriers will be used to limit the area of construction within occupied habitat. ► If culverts in occupied or potential Preble's habitat are replaced or upgraded, the new concrete box culverts would incorporate ledges to facilitate small mammal passage. ► Lighting within and near Preble's habitat will be incorporate current technology and standards (e.g. Dark Skies) at the time of design to reduce lighting impacts to Preble's. ► Where impacts to occupied habitat are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation would be provided through replacement with suitable Preble's habitat. Mitigation measures for Preble's could be combined with wetland mitigation. Wetland mitigation measures also may replace any impacts to suitable unoccupied Preble's habitat. Permanent impacts would be mitigated at a 3:1 mitigation to impact ratio; temporary impacts would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. CDOT would employ conservation measures to minimize impacts during construction. These measures would include: ► Stockpiling construction materials in bare areas, rather than on top of existing vegetation in known occupied and high potential habitats. ► Informing construction workers the reasons for and importance of limiting impacts to • vegetated habitat outside the work area in known occupied habitat. ► Supervising work on a daily basis to ensure that conditions established by the USFWS are met. ► Implementing concurrent revegetation during construction to the maximum extent practicable. ► Providing a report to the USFWS that includes photographic documentation of site conditions prior to and at the completion of construction. ► Reporting any inadvertent mortalities found during construction as specified in current trapping guidelines. CDOT will report all relevant information within 24 hours and subsequently submit a completed Injury/Mortality Documentation Report to the USFWS, Ecological Services Colorado Field Office or the USFWS's Division of Law Enforcement in Lakewood, Colorado (telephone 303-274-3560). ► In the unlikely event that a Preble's mouse (dead, injured, or otherwise) is located during construction, the Colorado Field Office of the USFWS will be contacted immediately to identify additional measures, as appropriate, to minimize impacts to Preble's. In many cases, existing culverts would be replaced by more and/or larger concrete box culverts or by bridges, which would likely facilitate movement of Preble's between habitat areas. The specifics of the conservation measures will be developed in coordination with the USFWS during final design and prior to construction. Documentation of the final conservation measures would include plans and specifications for creation of and enhancements to Preble's • habitat that could result in an increase in Preble's habitat. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Bald Eagle ► A raptor nest survey (to include bald eagles)will be conducted prior to construction to identify bald eagle nests in the project area. If an active bald eagle nest is found within 0.5 mile of the project area, CDOW-recommended buffers and seasonal restrictions (no human encroachment within 0.5 mile of the nest from November 15 to July 31) will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. ► No construction will occur within 0.25 mile of active nocturnal roosts between November 15 and March 15. If perch or roost trees are removed during construction, they will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with native cottonwood trees. ► All overhead lighting at the intersection of 1-25 and SH 392 near Fossil Creek Reservoir will incorporate the latest technology at the time of construction to control light leakage and direct lighting away from eagles roosting or nesting at the reservoir. ► Mitigation for wetland impacts will also provide mitigation for impacts to riparian habitats used for foraging by bald eagles. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Prairie dog distribution in the project area is likely to change between the time field surveys were conducted and the time construction occurs; therefore, prairie dog colonies will need to be resurveyed prior to construction. In areas where avoidance of prairie dogs is not possible, CDOT will follow its Impacted Black- • tailed Prairie Dog Policy (CDOT, 2009). CDOT's prairie dog policy is described in greater detail in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO, 2008) and Addendum (ERO, 2011a) and includes avoidance and minimization of impacts to prairie dog colonies greater than two acres during design and construction of CDOT projects. If avoidance is not practicable, the policy calls for relocation, donation to raptor rehabilitation facilities, or donation to the black-footed ferret reintroduction program. If relocation or donation to raptor or ferret facilities is not practicable, prairie dogs will be humanely euthanized prior to construction. At no time will CDOT authorize earth-moving activities that result in the burying of living prairie dogs. Any prairie dog relocation or removal activities will be carried out in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations, and with close coordination with CDOW. Western Burrowing Owl ► Burrowing owl surveys will be conducted prior to any work in prairie dog colonies between March 15 and October 31 (when burrowing owls are present in Colorado) (CDOW, 2007). If burrowing owls are present, prairie dog removal will be scheduled to occur outside this time period. ► If burrowing owls are found in the construction footprint during preconstruction surveys, nests will be left undisturbed and additional avoidance measures will be developed in coordination with CDOW. No human encroachment or disturbance will occur within 150 feet of a known nesting site until after November 1, or until it can be confirmed that owls have left the prairie dog town (CDOW, 2007). • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-36 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. ► Direct impacts to burrowing owls will be avoided by covering or destroying prairie dog burrows prior to construction (prior to March 15) in order to prevent burrowing owls nesting in the construction area. Prairie dogs will be humanely removed following CDOT's prairie dog policy prior to destruction of burrows. Great Blue Heron Direct impacts to nesting great blue herons will be avoided by prohibiting work within the CDOW-recommended 500-meter (0.31-mile) buffer from nest sites (NDIS, 2010). Impacts within this buffer will be limited during the great blue heron nesting season, which occurs from mid-March through July. Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog ► Mitigation measures for wetlands and Preble's, including wetland replacement and riparian enhancement, will also mitigate for impacts to northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. ► Replacement of culverts with larger concrete box culverts or free-spanning bridges where appropriate will also mitigate for potential impacts to northern leopard frog and common gartersnake. State Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Aquatic Species • The project will comply with Colorado Senate Bill (SB) 40, which requires any agency of the State of Colorado to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries (CDOT, 2003a). An application for SB 40 wildlife certification would be submitted to CDOW. CDOW will review the plans to ensure the project adequately protects fish and wildlife resources, and will provide recommendations if the proposed project would adversely affect a stream. To offset temporary impacts to aquatic species from habitat disturbance, aquatic habitats will be restored after construction activities have ceased. The following design measures will mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish. ► Riffle and pool complexes will be maintained and/or created. ► Natural stream bottoms will be maintained. ► Culverts will be partially buried and the bottom will be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient to the maximum extent practicable. ► Culverts will be replaced with one of equal or greater size. ► Culverts will not have grates, energy dissipaters, or any other features that would impede fish movement. ► To avoid erosion-induced siltation and sedimentation, erosion control measures will be applied, such as the immediate reseeding of disturbed areas after construction and, if necessary, the application of mulch and mulch tackifier to stabilize slopes. • ► Erosion control blankets will be "wildlife friendly," consisting of 100% biodegradable materials. ► Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► No new fish passage barriers will be created. ► Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where practicable. An example is the drop structure east of the frontage road at 1-25 and St. Vrain Creek, which is planned to be modified to facilitate fish passage as part of this project. CDOT's water quality BMPs will be applied, and include the installation of mechanisms to collect, contain, and/or treat road run-off. Mitigation measures, such as habitat replacement/enhancement and replacement of existing culverts with larger or more numerous culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, would also improve fish habitat. These measures are designed to offset impacts to wetlands, ULTO, and Preble's. The mitigation measures for state sensitive fish species described above, including SB 40 certification and water quality BMPs, also benefit sensitive aquatic invertebrates, such as the cylindrical papershell and Mesocapnia frisoni stonefly. Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern No specific mitigation measures are proposed for swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk because impacts to these species are expected to be minor or nonexistent. Colorado Butterfly Plant and Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid Potential CBP and ULTO habitat within the project area along the Cache la Poudre, Big • Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers and along St. Vrain Creek, will be surveyed during the flowering season just prior to construction. Surveys are to be conducted according to USFWS protocol by a biologist who meets qualifications established by the USFWS for performing presence/absence surveys for these species. The findings of the survey will be documented in a biological finding report and submitted to USFWS for concurrence prior to beginning any construction activities. In the unlikely event either CBP or ULTO is found in the project area, specific conservation measures will be developed in coordination with the USFWS. Conservation measures could include avoiding impacts by establishing a no-work zone or, in the event of unavoidable impacts, enhancing adjacent or off-site habitat. Additionally, an integrated weed management plan or project-spcific CDOT 217 specification will be incorporated in the project design and implemented during construction to control the infestation of noxious weeds. • Threatened,Endangered,and State Sensitive Species 3.13-38 • N o m I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 14 Visual Quality • 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.14 VISUAL QUALITY 3.14.1 Introduction This section describes existing visual resources in the regional study area. It What's in Section 3.13? includes a discussion of: 3.14 Visual Quality 3.14.1 Introduction ► Landscape character units used to 3.14.2 Affected Environment evaluate visual resources and visual 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences 3.14.3.1 No-Action Alternative quality considerations associated with each unit 3.14.3.2 Package A 3.14.3.3 Package B ► 3.14.3.4 Preferred Alternative An inventory of existing visual resources 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures and significant views in the regional 3.14.3.1 Highway study area 3.14.3.2 Transit ► A summary of important visual resources and visual quality considerations for local communities based on a review of local land use planning documents The visual assessment process includes determining effects to visual resources by improvements that would: • ► Block or impede views of scenic value (such as mountains or pastoral landscapes) ► Change the existing visual character or quality of the site, such as: • Introducing new visual elements • Relocating homes and businesses • Impacting town character • Impacting wetland resources, floodplains, and unique landforms This visual assessment process also examines the consistency of improvements with any visual resource protection policies and goals stated in comprehensive plans and ordinances. Specific design elements that could affect visual quality are: ► Sound walls ► Lighting ► Retaining walls ► Elevation changes to roads ► Bridges ► Additional landscaping ► Road widening- new expanses of ► New rails, stations, and maintenance pavement facilities • Visual Quality 3.14-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation • 3.14.2 Affected Environment Due to the magnitude of the regional study area, project area corridors were evaluated according to distinct landscape character units. Physical elements of a landscape are what form the visual patterns that strongly influence our response to the landscape. The six landscape character units evaluated consisted of: ► Existing transportation corridors ► Agricultural , open space, and undeveloped land ► Parks, recreation areas, and trails ► Water and natural resources • • '' • ► Commercial , light industrial, and municipal uses - Y i- : ► Residential (urban , suburban , rural ) uses A visual quality assessment was performed , which considered the existing visual quality of the regional study area and how existing visual resources (natural areas, important viewsheds, and land use) help to define the scenic backdrop of a community. It also evaluated whether existing 111 visual resources would remain the same or change based on improvements associated with Photo 3.14-1 . BNSF Rail Corridor, Ft. Collins components of the No-Action Alternative and the This view reflects a more urban residential corridor. two build packages. Visual quality considerations associated with each of the six landscape character units in the project corridor are described below. Existing Transportation Corridors. There are three primary transportation corridors in Satiestaat : & .,4,� , ..,,, +r the project area . US 85, 1-25 and the BNSF, and �,g' '` .1S- ,t ;, UPRR corridors were assessed as landscape I -•. " ' character units. . • The US 85 corridor runs from the City of Greeley in the north to Denver Union Station in the south . The corridor traverses large tracts of agricultural land along the northern portion of the corridor interspersed with rural towns. The southern Photo 3.14-2. Big Dry Creek Open Space portion of the corridor is more urban in nature Open space is highly regarded by many viewers for its scenic values. associated with the Denver metropolitan area . The 1-25 corridor begins in the north at the Town of Wellington and terminates at Denver Union Station . The northern portion of the corridor traverses agricultural lands, but moving south becomes more urban in nature, with increasing residential and commercial uses. Visual Quality 3.14-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. The BNSF Railway and UPRR corridors travel through undeveloped fields, rural residential areas, and in built up urban areas. In urban areas, the BNSF rail bed traverses along urban streets as seen in Photo 3. 14-1 , which depicts a typical gravel rail bed that intersects city streets. Parks, Recreation Areas, and Trails. There are numerous parks, recreation areas, and trails adjacent to the project corridors. Often these areas offer views to on-site natural resources and views of mountains, hills, and valleys. These resources increase the scenic integrity values of viewsheds J'�`: � r t - t `' `Y�' " r within the corridors. These recreation areas • ' sometimes function as open space "buffers" �.1-. � ::::1111141M64 � r:` s dedicated to enhancing scenic values of an area. T: ,�,;; (Photo 3. 14-2) Water and Natural Resources. Adjacent floodplains = k •° and riparian areas with grasslands, shrubs, and Photo 3.14-3. Federal and 119th Street trees are common to larger natural drainage This view is representative of development systems. Natural resources also include views to the land uses adjoining undeveloped areas and mountains, hills and valleys that are typical to the natural corridors, with wide sweeping background views of the Front Range and more rural undeveloped landscapes. The occurrence foothills. of this landscape character unit increases the scenic integrity value of viewsheds within the project corridors. In addition , the more varied the viewshed with natural resource elements such as rock outcroppings, the higher the scenic value is - (Photo 3. 14-3). e-- , .ter` i-'�' - SW a e/ s �r Commercial, Light Industrial, and Municipal. ate k ..6.1„„lis Notable components of this landscape character unit Al".42L-1 r sawr are any historical landscape elements such as those �s •� b- ler found in historic towns, including historic grain e � `r ' Lake elevators, other farm or ranch outbuildings, and I -- �' historic government buildings. These elements are _ '�- , often considered to increase the scenic quality of a -.- landscape or viewshed ( Photo 3. 14-4). ar* :.,:r " - " Residential : Urban, Suburban, and Rural. Each of the project corridors bisects residential areas that Photo 3.14-4. Grain Elevator, Larimer County can be classified as urban , suburban , and rural . Historic landscape elements, such as this six- chamber grain elevator, can increase a Urban residential areas contain higher density landscape's scenic quality. housing units with very minimal open space or landscaped areas surrounding the units. Suburban areas are less dense and have larger lots with greater landscaped areas. Rural residential areas are often associated with agriculture. In general , the less dense the land use, the greater the natural scenic integrity remaining intact. The development density associated with residences generally increases when moving from north to south in the regional study area. Visual resources in the regional study area were identified through a review of planning documents and through field observation . Generally, significant visual resources include historic structures, parklands, open space, and natural Visual Quality 3.14-3 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • resources/areas (e.g., lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands). Field observations were performed to determine the locations of sensitive viewsheds and dominant existing views. Desirable, important, and protected views in the regional study area were documented. These views are identified on Figure 3.14-1. Based on a review of local land use planning documents, some of the primary visual goals important to local communities are: ► Important ecological and scenic resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, and unique landforms, should be protected and enhanced. ► The small-town character of Berthoud should be maintained. ► Significant natural features in the Boulder Valley planning area, including Davidson Mesa, Gunbarrel Hill, and Boulder Reservoir, should be preserved. ► Numerous natural landmarks were defined as prominent landscape features, deemed important because of the views they afford and for scenic, visual, or aesthetic values. ► Active protection of farmland and open space should be encouraged. ► The greenbelt around the city of Broomfield should be preserved, where feasible, to protect environmentally constrained lands, steep slopes, creek corridors, and buffer growth in nearby communities. ► Wildlife preserves, riparian corridors, Rocky Mountain views, and greenbelt buffers along • roadways should be identified as visually important to provide visual relief from more intense land uses. ► Mountain and downtown views from public places, such as parks, should be preserved. ► Design guidelines for both public and private developments should be maintained to promote protection and enhancement of the visual environment. ► Mountain backdrops were identified as significant visual resources. ► Historic buildings should be preserved as landscape features that help to create community identity. • Visual Quality 3.14.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 , Ai August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.14-1 Visual Resources Identified in the Regional Study Area r 1 _____)t@ LEGEND f Al Study Corridors f.. /N/ Highways ..,.<4. w�•i.gmon , �`~.�, ff N 85 '4 ! / Arterial Roads I N` 1. _: Regional Study Area City Boundaries i\-� ''Rcn I \ o Cities & Towns i fort • lins, i / ! ` View Arrow I ail 1 Visual Resources Identified I ' 7' * in Comprehensive Plans iimrwtth O ;cvcrance Elio i Significant Views Identified In Field aw• II, waive i ! I Uxamne 7' (ireelo , • !' fi Y � '. 34 ! �► I 263 Loveland N uit,a,:Glt t�-. 34 I I se Ivan I t Id S.dlc . + Gnlpon .kllmnMc,wn / I / 160 L! sm+tl,ow O maher 85 / 56 i I 0 �—tela tt %. I 'a I Me w i/ • u . I, Innijrnont I Far Vollmer 0 0 firestone I ie �t + M.vot a knfrncY I �' ' i C'" ,�` I1,,.n�� Frtt lupi:e: i NI / yyf.�If\t �'r' //1 Y / OV°ll 0 I 1 wi 4—S • 1YancMwg I i Boulde t O taldticue '^'I Y `' n.w �, t t lauc �y m�mt '• j 7 ',�• 4,r.+la►r , .%. &tMnf:cld 36 � 1 . 0 I n:ctlli(XY. .\ R ' \ I 72I \I I / se I Denver--/I 429 . 0 2 4 6 8 10 / \ ' % .F>_• -- _____-- 1� Miles North0 . / I _ / [ R _ Visual Quality 3.14-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences Many of the North Front Range communities comprising the regional study area have unimpeded views to the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, including Longs Peak and Mount Meeker. Proposed improvements associated with the packages are minor relative to the large scale of this view. Proposed improvements that affect visual quality in the project area were identified and evaluated for the degree of effect. Effects were rated as minor, moderate, or high. An effect is categorized as minor if it does not block or impede scenic views or diminish the visual character. This would include walls that are 5 feet or less in height and interchanges and bridges that are built at the same height. An effect was categorized as moderate if it either would block or impede a scenic view of value to adjacent businesses or residences (within half-mile radius) or diminish the visual character.This would include walls from 5 feet to 15 feet in height and bridges and interchanges raised 6 feet or less in height. An effect was categorized as high if it would block or impede a scenic view of value (within '/3-mile radius) and also diminish the visual character. This would include walls greater than 15 feet in height and bridges and interchanges raised greater than 6 feet. The visual effects that occur as a result of highway widening, rail construction, bridge and wall construction, carpool lots, stations, and maintenance facilities were evaluated for each component. Transportation improvements associated with the project could result in both short-term and • long-term visual impacts. Short-term impacts include disruptions during construction while long-term impacts are the result of permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Short-term impacts would include detours, an increase in roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term impacts would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term impacts include relocation of businesses and residences; new interchanges; increased right-of-way; addition of station amenities (lighting); and changes to the surrounding landscape through the use of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, medians, as well as from alterations to the existing roadway grade. 3.14.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Direct Impacts The No-Action Alternative would generally have minimal effect on visual resources. Existing conditions, described in Section 3.14.1, would continue. Indirect Impacts Traffic and congestion would continue to increase. Even without highway or transit improvements associated with the project, growth would continue to occur on undeveloped agricultural land. This would change the landscape character along the 1-25, the BNSF and US 287 corridors, and alter views and perception of visual character. • Visual Quality 3.14-6 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 3.14.3.2 PACKAGE A Visual impacts are discussed below for transportation improvement components in Package A. Visual elements associated with highway improvements include interchange upgrades, replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots. Table 3.14-6, provided later in this section, summarizes visual impacts from highway widening and structure upgrades under each Package A highway component. Structural elements include retaining walls, sound walls, bridges, box culverts and interchanges. Retaining walls are proposed in areas that currently do not have them. Retaining walls would be either the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) standard retaining walls or mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls and would range from 3 feet, 6 inches to 21 feet, 6 inches in height. If the retaining wall goes up vertically from 1-25, it would reduce the visual effect of the highway on surrounding homes and businesses while limiting motorists' views. If the retaining wall goes down vertically from 1-25, it would limit the views of the surrounding homes to the surrounding community and long-range views from areas east of 1-25 to the mountains. Sound walls are proposed in areas which currently do not have them. The new sound walls would range from 10 feet to 12 feet in height. While new sound walls would reduce noise impacts to the surrounding community, they could increase visual impacts. The new sound walls would reduce the visual effect of the highway on surrounding homes and businesses • while limiting motorists' views and long-range views of the surrounding community. A-H1 Highway Safety Improvements (SH 1 to SH 14). Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-1 identifies the location and height range of one A-H1 retaining wall that would be greater than 15 feet in height. This wall would have a high effect to the surrounding community. One retaining wall would be 15 feet in height or less, this wall would have a moderate visual effect. Table 3.14-1 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H1 Retaining Wall Retaining Wall Location Height Range Impacts Motorist or (feet/inches) Surrounding Community? North of LCR 58, south of LCR 60 on 1-25 3'-5"to 21'-5" Surrounding community Near SH 1 and 1-25 (NW quadrant) 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community • Visual Quality 3.14-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-2 identifies the location and height for the one sound wall in this component. It would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-2 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-H1 EastNVest Side Sound Wall Sound Wall Location of I-25 Height Range Sound Wall Length (feet/inches) North of SH 1 on 1-25 West 10'-12' 1,000' Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Ten bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be modified or reconstructed at the same heights as the structures that they are replacing. Four bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet of less. The addition of retaining walls, a sound wall, and the reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would overall have a moderate visual effect to motorists and adjacent homes and businesses, since similar structures already exist in these locations. Carpool Lots. A carpool lot is proposed in the southwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 1. Carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the carpool lot would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the carpool lots. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because • it does not block any views and would not require the relocation of businesses or residences. A-H2 General Purpose Lanes (SH 14 to SH 60) Highway Widening. Widening the highway from SH 14 to SH 60 would require the relocation of residences and businesses. Highway widening would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because of the required relocation of businesses and residences. The greater expanse of pavement, from 68 feet to 120 feet between SH 14 and Crossroads and from 68 feet to 144 feet between Crossroads and SH 60, would result in a change in the visual experience for motorists. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-3 identifies the location and height range of eighteen A-H2 retaining walls that would be greater than 15 feet in height, which would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-4 identifies the location and height of one sound wall in A-H2 which would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. • Visual Quality 3.14-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-3 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H2 Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range Surrounding Community? (feet/inches) North of Harmony Road, south of LCR 40 on 1-25 11'-0"to 15'-5" Motorist North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 11'-0"to 69'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 11-0"to 20'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 18'-0"to 23'-0" Motorist North of SH 392, south of LCR 36 on 1-25 14'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near SH 392 and 1-25 3'-5"to 20'-5" Surrounding community Near Crossroads Blvd and 1-25 19'-0"to 34'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 5-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 4'-5"to 35'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 10'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 3'-5"to 31'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 3'-0"to 35-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of LCR 20E on 1-25 5'-5"to 19'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of LCR 20E on 1-25 4'-5"to 30'-0" Surrounding community • Near LCR 16 and 1-25 27'-0"to 39'-5" Surrounding community Near SH 60 and 1-25 10'-5"to 29'-5" Surrounding community Table 3.144 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-H2 EastlWest Side Sound Wall Sound Wall Sound Wall Location of I-25 Height Range Length (feet) South of SH 392 and north of CR 30 on West 12' 2,500' 1-25 at Mountain Range Shadows Five interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 to 12 feet. Rebuilding the interchange with the grade change would have a moderate effect on visual conditions. Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a change to the vertical alignment. The interchange 1-25 and SH 402 would be modified to have SH 402 go over 1-25 and the interchange 1-25 and LCR 16 would be modified to have LCR 16 go over 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would have a moderate visual effect because it would block existing views from 1-25 to the mountains. Lowering the vertical alignment of 1-25 would limit the views of the vehicular traveler, while opening the view to adjacent properties. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 to 12 feet. Nine bridges that make up the US 34 interchange would be constructed in two levels. One level approximately 24 feet above the existing US 34 and another level approximately 48 feet above existing US 34. The US 34 eastbound and westbound by-pass over LCR 5, and the US 34 • over Rocky Mountain Avenue would require relocation of businesses. The increase of size and vertical alignment of the US 34 interchange would have a high visual effect to the vehicular traveler and adjacent properties. Visual Quality 3.14-9 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Nine bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed or modified at the same heights as the bridges that they are replacing. Eighteen bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Four bridges and box culverts are proposed to be constructed with a grade change from 6 to 12 feet. Three bridges are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 28 feet. The introduction of numerous retaining walls over 15 feet in height, a sound wall, reconstructed interchanges and bridges that vary in their degree of visual effect to the surrounding community would have a high visual effect overall. Carpool Lots. Five carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: 1-25 and SH 14, 1-25 and Prospect Road, 1-25 and Harmony Road, 1-25 and SH 392, and 1-25 and SH 402. The carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the carpool lots would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the carpool lots. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of carpool lots would have a minor visual effect because they would not block views or require the relocation of businesses or residences. A-H3 General Purpose Lanes (SH 60 to E-470) Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from SH 60 to SH 66 and from SH 52 to E-470 would require the relocation of residences and businesses and naturalized type landscaping. Highway widening would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because it would require the relocation of businesses. The greater expanse of • pavement, from 68 feet to 120 feet between SH 60 and SH 66, from 128 feet to 144 feet between SH 52 and SH 7, and from 136 feet to 168 feet between SH 7 and E-470, would result in a change in the visual experience for motorists. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-5 identifies the location and height range of 13 A-H3 retaining walls that would be greater than 15 feet in height. These would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. One retaining wall would be 15 feet in height or less, this wall would have a moderate visual effect. Table 3.14-5 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H3 Retaining Wall Height Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Range P (feet/inches) Surrounding Community? North of WCR 40, south of SH 56 on 1-25 3'-5"to 29'-0" Motorist North of WCR 40, south of SH 56 on 1-25 14'-0" Motorist North of WCR 40, south of SH 56 on 1-25 14'-0"to 18'-0" Surrounding community Near WCR 34 and 1-25 24'-0"to 30'-0" Surrounding community Near WCR 34 and 1-25 12'-0"to 34'-0" Motorist Near WCR 34 and 1-25 34'-0"to 38'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 66, south of WCR 32 on 1-25 5'-0"to 25'-5" Surrounding community North of SH 66, south of WCR 32 on 1-25 21'-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community North of 160th, south of SH 7 on 1-25 1'-0"to 18'-2" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 2'-0"to 42'-0" Surrounding community • SH 7 and 1-25 2'-6"to 33'-1" Surrounding community Visual Quality 3.14-10 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.14-5 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-H3 (conmt'd) Retaining Wall Height Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Range (feet/inches) Surrounding Community? SH 7 and I-25 2'-0"to 34'-9" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 1'-9"to 45'-2" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 5'-8"to 16'-5" Surrounding community Five interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt at the same heights that exist today. Rebuilding the interchanges at the same heights would have a minor effect on visual conditions. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a change to its vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 56 would be modified to have 1-25 go over SH 56. Lowering the vertical alignment of SH 56 would limit the views of adjacent properties and improve the views to motorists on 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would have a moderate effect to visual conditions because it would impact the views of surrounding businesses and residences to the mountains and require relocation of a residence. Nine bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same heights as the bridges that they are replacing. Reconstruction of existing structures would have a minor visual effect to the highway because the area already has structures in these locations. Nine bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Nine bridges and box culverts are proposed to be reconstructed with • a grade change of 7 to 14 feet. The introduction of new interchange alignments and bridges that vary in their degree of visual effect to the surrounding community would have a high visual effect overall to a highway that already has numerous bridges and interchanges. Carpool Lots. Six carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: 1-25 and SH 60, 1-25 and SH 56, 1-25 and SH 66, 1-25 and SH 119, 1-25 and SH 52, and 1-25 and SH 7. The carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the carpool lots would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the carpool lots. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it would not block views or require relocation of businesses or residences. A-I-14 Structure Upgrades (E-470 to US 36) Bridges in the A-H4 component project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same height as the bridges that they are replacing. Reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would have a minor visual effect to a highway that already has bridges and interchanges in these locations. Table 3.14-6 Package A Highway Components Effects Analysis Package A Highway Components Highway Widening effect Structural Upgrade effect A-H 1 None Moderate • A-H2 Moderate High A-H3 Moderate High A-H4 None Minor Visual Quality 3.1411 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • A-TI Commuter Rail-Fort Collins to Longmont Rail Impacts. This portion of the commuter rail alignment is proposed to be located in the BNSF right-of-way. Between the BNSF North Yard and the CSU station at University Avenue, the commuter rail alignment would use the existing track through Fort Collins. Since there would be no improvements to the track through this portion, there would be no visual effects. South of CSU to North Longmont, the commuter rail alignment would transition to a double track. The commuter rail alignment would utilize the existing BNSF track and proposes a new track to the east of the existing track. For the majority of this component, the new track would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing track. A 6-foot chain link fence would run parallel on the east and west sides of the tracks. At all railroad crossings, gates would be upgraded or installed in order to provide safe crossings and potentially limit horns at crossings. Ten railroad crossings would be upgraded to a four-quadrant gate. This would add two additional gates in the medians of the adjacent cross street. Adding gates would reduce noise impacts to the community, but would have a minor visual effect on surrounding businesses and residences. The new track and chain link fence would represent a moderate effect to the surrounding community because they would require relocation of residences and businesses. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-7 identifies the location and height range of five A-T1 retaining walls that could be greater than 15 feet in height. These would have a high visual effect. Table 3.14-7 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-T1 Retaining Wall Impacts transit rider or •Retaining Wall Location Height Range (feet/inches) surrounding community? North of Fossil Creek Trail, south of Fairway Lane along BNSF 14'-5"to 16'-4" Transit rider North of Fossil Creek Trail, south of Fairway Lane along BNSF 11-5"to 16-3" Transit rider North of Fossil Creek Drive, south of Fossil 15'-4"to 16-5" Surrounding Creek Trail along BNSF community North of Fossil Creek Drive, south of Fossil 12'_7"to 18'-6" Surrounding community Creek Trail along BNSF Y 24th Street SW and BNSF 8'-6"to 16'-2" Surrounding community Table 3.14-8 identifies the location of 15 A-T1 sound walls, all of which would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. • Visual Quality 3.14-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-8 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-T1 Sound Wall Location East/West Side of tracks Sound Wall Length (feet) East of 23rd St- Mountain Ash Place(Loveland) East 1,400' 35th Street SW(Champion) East 600' South CR 15 (Berthoud) East 400' 21st Avenue-23rd Avenue (Longmont) West 900' 17th Avenue- 19th Avenue (Longmont) West 1,300' 17th Avenue-21st Avenue(Longmont) East 2,500' 15th Avenue- 17th Avenue (Longmont) East 1,200' Mountain View Avenue - 15th Avenue (Longmont) East 1,300' 11th Avenue- Mountain View Avenue (Longmont) East 1,500' 9th Avenue- 10th Avenue(Longmont) East 600' 8th Avenue -9th Avenue (Longmont) East 600' 7th Avenue-8th Avenue (Longmont) East 500' 5th Avenue-6th Avenue (Longmont) East 500' 4th Avenue-5th Avenue (Longmont) East 500' 3rd Avenue-4th Avenue (Longmont) East 500' • New bridges would run parallel to the existing track and cross at the same height. The introduction of new bridges would have a minor visual effect to a railroad corridor that already has tracks and bridges in these locations. Although the effect associated with the bridges would be minor, with the addition of the sound walls and new bridges, this would have an overall high visual effect to the rail corridor. Table 3.14-9 summarizes commuter rail impacts associated with Component A-T1. Commuter Rail Stations. Standard commuter rail stations would consist of two platforms, which measure 400 feet by 25 feet. The commuter rail platforms would require a pedestrian overpass that is 12-feet wide and 23-feet high between the platforms with elevator and stair towers. Amenities associated with stations would include: shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreen, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpass, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the commuter rail stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on commuter rail stations. There would be minimal light overspill. Shielding the light would minimize the impacts of the lights to the surrounding residential and commercial properties. The addition of a parking lot would create an asphalt area. Table 3.14-9 summarizes commuter rail station impacts associated with Component A-T1. The Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center would be an exception to the standard commuter rail station. This station is proposed to be served by one platform with no overpasses or stair towers required. The parking at the Downtown Transit Center is proposed to be either surface parking or a parking structure. The addition of a parking lot would create a large area of asphalt while a parking structure would introduce a three-story building in an urban area where the average building height is two to four stories. Adding a station at the Fort Collins • Downtown Transit Center would have a moderate visual effect to the urban downtown area because it would require relocation of the City of Fort Collins parking lot but would not affect views. Visual Quality 3.14-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.14-9 Component A-T1 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis Station Name Effects Classification Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Relocation of parking lot Moderate Colorado State University Views to mountains blocked Moderate South Fort Collins Transit Center Views to mountains blocked Moderate North Loveland Business relocation, views to mountains blocked High Downtown Loveland Parking lot relocation, views to mountains blocked High Berthoud Business relocation, views to mountains blocked High North Longmont Residential relocation, views to mountains blocked High The North Loveland, Downtown Loveland , Berthoud , and North Longmont stations would have a high visual effect because they would require relocation of a business or residence and the station would impede views from the east to the mountains. Stations at CSU and South Fort Collins Transit Center would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because they would impede views from the east to the mountains, particularly Longs Peak. The effect would be moderate because, while it would impede views, it would not require the relocation of any businesses. Figure 3. 14-2 and Figure 3. 14-3 are visual simulations that depict the Berthoud commuter rail station . Maintenance Facility. Two commuter rail maintenance facility locations are being considered in Package A. The standard maintenance facility would consist of additional tracks, offices, dispatch/driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking . Visual impacts associated with each commuter rail maintenance facility location are summarized in Table 3. 14-10. Figure 3.14-2 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Plaza . _ II , • Ida Visual Quality 3.14-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation.Figure 3.14-3 Berthoud Station, View at Commuter Rail Station gu e Mi+ ai" - -. : aloe , _r � Table 3.14-10 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis Maintenance Facility Name Effects Classification East Vine and Timberline Visible to surrounding community Moderate CR 46 and US 287 Visible to surrounding community Moderate East Vine Drive and North Timberline . The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and to residential and commercial buildings. The maintenance facility would be visible to Vine Drive and the surrounding neighborhood . The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate visual effect because it would be visible to the surrounding community and change the visual character of the area . CR 46 and US 287 . The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to residential and commercial development. Additional traffic would be added to local streets. The maintenance facility would be visible to motorists on US 287, 3rd Street, and in the surrounding neighborhood . The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate visual effect because it would be visible to the surrounding community and change the visual character of the area . A-T2 Commuter Rail - Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Rail Impacts. The commuter rail alignment from the Sugar Mill station would utilize the existing BNSF track and place a new track to the east of the existing track. The new track would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing BNSF track. A double track with two new tracks would provide the connection from the Sugar Mill station to the proposed Visual Quality 3.14-15 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. The track would run parallel to SH 119 east from Sugar Mill, turn south and parallel CR 7, then follow the UPRR alignment across 1-25 to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. A six-foot chain link fence would run parallel to the tracks on the east and west sides of the tracks. At all railroad crossings, gates would be installed to improve safety and limit noise effects. While the addition of gates would reduce noise effects, they could increase effects to the visual environment. The introduction of a new track would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The relocation of businesses and residences, new track, chain link fence, railroad, and crossing elements would have an overall moderate effect on the surrounding community. Component A-T2 would include three new grade separations where one does not currently exist. These are at the following locations: ► SH 52 —this grade-separated crossing would moderately impact adjacent residences. The new structure over SH 52 would impede views to the Front Range that have been identified as significant. ► Wyndham Hill Parkway—just north of SH 52, there would be a new bridge that would be visible from residential areas both east and west of County Road 7. The structure over Wyndham Hill Parkway would impede views to the Front Range. This impact would be moderate. ► SH 119 (Longmont)— on the eastern side of Longmont, a new bridge would be constructed to carry the commuter rail tracks over SH 119. This would affect views from motorists traveling east and west on SH 119 and residents in the area. This impact would be • moderate. Structural Impacts Table 3.14-11 identifies the location and height ranges for 16 A-T2 retaining walls that would be greater than 15 feet in height. This would have a high visual impact. • Visual Quality 3.14-16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-11 Retaining Wall Locations in Component A-T2 Retaining Wall Impacts Transit Rider or Retaining Wall Location Height Range Surrounding (feet/inches) Community? East of Emery Street, west of Martin Street on 8'_5"to 25'-0" Surrounding community BNSF/1st Avenue East of Emery Street, west of Martin Street on BNSF/1st Avenue 10'-5"to 25'-0" Surrounding community West of Alpine Drive, east of Martin Street on BNSF 14'-2"to 21'-3" Transit rider West of Alpine Drive, east of Martin Street on BNSF 4'-7"to 21'-3" Transit rider West of the intersection of SH 119 and Ken Pratt 17'-0"to 26'-0" Transit rider Boulevard West of the intersection of SH 119 and Ken Pratt 3'-5"to 20'-9" Transit rider Boulevard East of the intersection of SH 119 and Ken Pratt 10'-6"to 25'-0" Transit rider Boulevard East of the intersection of SH 119 and Ken Pratt 10'-6"to 25'-0" Transit rider Boulevard North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 10'-1"to 18'-6" Surrounding community North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 9'-3"to 18'-6" Surrounding community North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 20'-5"to 25-0" Transit rider North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 20'-5"to 25-0" Transit rider • SH 52 and CR 7 9'-0"to 20'-3" Surrounding community SH 52 and CR 7 9'-0"to 20'-3" Surrounding community SH 52 and CR 7 13'-2"to 17'-3" Surrounding community South of 168th Avenue and Colorado Blvd 9'-3"to 19'-8" Surrounding community Table 3.14-12 identifies the location of the A-T2 sound wall, which would have a high visual effect on the surrounding community. Table 3.14-12 Sound Wall Locations in Component A-T2 Sound Wall Location East/West Side of Sound Wall Length 1-25 (feet) CR 8 (Dacono) East 1,500' The new bridges would run parallel and cross at the same height as the existing track from Longmont to Sugar Mill. The introduction of these new bridges would have a minor visual effect to a railroad corridor that already has tracks and bridges in these locations. The bridges over ditches and creeks would not be raised in height from the surrounding grade; therefore, they would have a minor visual effect. The new bridge that crosses SH 119 would be 30 feet with structure depth over the roadway. This would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community because it would impede views to the mountains and surrounding development. • The introduction of retaining walls, sound walls, and new bridges would have an overall high visual effect on the rail corridor. A summary of the results of the A-T2 commuter rail effects analysis is provided in Table 3.14-13. Visual Quality 3.14-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-13 Package A Commuter Rail Effects Analysis Commuter Rail Components Rail Structural A-T1 Moderate High A-T2 Moderate High Commuter Rail Stations. Table 3.14-14 summarizes A-T2 commuter rail station visual impacts. Table 3.14-14 Component A-T2 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis Station Name Effects Classification Longmont at Sugar Mill Business relocation, views to Moderate mountains blocked I-25 and WCR 8 Views to mountains blocked Moderate FasTracks North Metro None None The stations at 1-25 and WCR 8 and at the Longmont and Sugar Mill would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because they would impede views from the east to • the mountains and Longs Peak. Commuter rail would stop at all of the North Metro corridor stations. These stations have not been included in the analysis since the stations are being designed and built as part of FasTracks, and no additional improvements are proposed as part of Package A. A-T3 and A-T4 Commuter Bus — Greeley to Denver/DIA Commuter Bus Stations. The standard commuter bus station would include parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the commuter bus stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the commuter bus stations. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount and type of landscaping would depend on city standards. Table 3.14-15 summarizes visual impacts associated with proposed commuter bus stations. The Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville and Fort Lupton stations would have a moderate visual effect because they would result in the relocation of a business or residence. These stations would not, however, impede views to the mountains. Commuter bus would stop at the existing Brighton park-n-Ride, Denver Union Station and DIA and the proposed Commerce City park and ride. These stations have not been included in the analysis and are assumed to be in existence at the time the EIS improvements and no additional improvements are proposed as part of Package A. • visual Quality 3.14-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-15 Component A-T3 Commuter Bus Station Effects Analysis Station Name Impact Classification Greeley Relocation of business Moderate South Greeley Use of existing parking lot Moderate Evans Relocation of residence Moderate Platteville Relocation of business Moderate Fort Lupton Relocation of business Moderate Brighton None None Commerce City None None Denver Union Station None None DIA None None Maintenance Facility. Two locations for the commuter bus maintenance facility are being considered in Package A. The standard maintenance facility would consist of offices, dispatch/ driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking. Table 3.14-16 summarizes visual impacts associated with each of the two potential locations for the commuter bus maintenance facility. Table 3.14-16 Package A Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis • Maintenance Facility Name Impact Classification Portner Road and Trilby Road Visible to surrounding community Moderate 31st Street and 1st Avenue Visible to surrounding community Moderate Portner Road and Trilby Road. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. it is adjacent to vacant land and to residential and commercial buildings. The maintenance facility would be visible to Trilby Road and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment because it would change the visual character of the area. 31st Street and 1st Avenue. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and commercial development. The maintenance facility would be visible to 31st Street and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment because it would change the visual character of the area. Summary of Package A Impacts Direct Impacts. Highway and transit improvements would include rebuilding interchanges, replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots, tracks, platforms, shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreen, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpass, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, • and landscaping. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, including Longs Peak to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect to the visual quality of the corridor. Visual Quality 3.14-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Both the highway and transit components in Package A would have short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long-term impacts would result from permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Short-term impacts under Package A would include detours, increased roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term impacts would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term impacts include relocation of businesses and residences, new interchanges, increased right-of-way, additions of station amenities, and changes to the surrounding landscape through the use of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, medians, as well as alterations to the existing roadway grade. Indirect Impacts. The proposed highway and transit improvements could encourage development that is more compact and denser, especially within walking distance of a commuter rail station. This would change the visual character. The addition of stations and a maintenance facility would add additional traffic to local streets. Both the stations and maintenance facility would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. 3.14.33 PACKAGE B Package B includes the same basic structural elements (retaining walls, sound walls, bridges, box culverts, and interchanges) that were described for Package A. Visual elements • associated with highway improvements include highway widening, reconstruction and modification of interchanges, new bridges, replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of three carpool lots. Table 3.14-24, later in this section, summarizes visual impacts from highway widening and structure upgrades for each Package B highway component. B-HI Highway Safety Improvements (SH I to SH 14) Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-17 identifies the location and heights of two B-H1 retaining walls that would be less than or equal to 15 feet in height. These would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-17 Wall Locations in Component B-Hl Retaining Wall Impacts motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range P (feet/inches) surrounding community? Near SH 1 and 1-25 (NW quadrant) 3'-5"to 15-0" Surrounding community Near SH 1 and 1-25 (SE quadrant) 3'-5"to 15-0" Surrounding community The location of the B-H1 sound wall is provided in Table 3.14-18. This would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. • Visual Quality 3.14-20 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-18 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H1 EastiWest Side Sound Wall Sound Wall Sound Wall Location of I-25 Height Range Length (feet/inches) North of SH 1 on 1-25 West 10'-12' 1,000' Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Ten bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be modified or reconstructed at the same elevation as the bridges that they are replacing. Two bridges and box culverts would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. The addition of retaining walls, a sound wall, and reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would overall have a moderate visual effect because these structures would block and impede views to the mountains. Carpool Lots. A carpool lot is proposed in the southwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 1. Carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the carpool lots would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the carpool lots. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it would not block views or require relocation of businesses or residences. • B-H2 Tolled Express Lane (SH 14 to SH 60) Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from SH 14 to Harmony Road would require a buffer separating the tolled express lanes (TELs) in each direction. The widening of the highway from Harmony Road to SH 60 would require one new barrier separating the two TELs in each direction. The widening of the highway from SH 14 to SH 60 would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The greater expanse of pavement, from 68 feet to 128 feet between SH 14 and Harmony Road and 68 feet to 192 feet between Harmony Road and SH 60, would result in a change in the visual experience for the motorist. Highway widening would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because it would require relocation of businesses or residences. Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-19 identifies the location and heights of 19 B-H2 retaining walls greater than 15 feet in height. These would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. Three retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less, these would have a moderate visual effect. • Visual Quality 3.14-21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Table 3.14-19 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H2 Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range P (feet/inches) Surrounding Community? Near SH 14 and 1-25 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 40, south of Prospect Road on 1-25 3'-5"to 33'-5" Motorist Near LCR 40 and 1-25, north of Harmony Road 3'-5"to 18'-5" Surrounding community Near Harmony Road and 1-25 3'-5"to 16'-0" Surrounding community Near 392 and 1-25 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community North of Crossroads Blvd, south of LCR 30 on 1-25 3'-5"to 25'-0" Motorist North of Crossroads Blvd, south of LCR 30 on 1-25 6'-0"to 29'-0" Motorist North of US 34, south of Crossroads Blvd. on 1-25 11,-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of US 34, south of Crossroads Blvd. on 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of US 34, south of Crossroads Blvd. on 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 4'-5"to 35'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 10'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 5'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18,south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5"to 31'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-0"to 35'-0" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5"to 25'-5" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5"to 25'-5" Surrounding community North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 3'-5"to 25'-5" Surrounding community III North of LCR 18, south of US 34 on 1-25 14'-0"to 31'-5" Surrounding community North of LCR 16,south of LCR 18 on 1-25 3'-5"to 19'-5" Motorist North of LCR 16, south of LCR 18 on 1-25 26'-0"to 36'-5" Surrounding community Near SH 60 (WCR 48)and 1-25 3'-5"to 15'-0" Surrounding community The location of the B-H2 sound wall is shown in Table 3.14-20. This would be a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-20 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H2 East/West Side Sound Wall Sound Wall Location Height Range Sound Wall of 1-25 (feet) Length South of SH 392 and North of CR 30 on 1-25 West 12' 2,500' at Mountain Range Shadows Five interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Two interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a change to the vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 402 would be modified to have SH 402 go over 1-25 and the interchange of 1-25 and LCR 16 would be modified to have LCR 16 go over 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would have a moderate effect to visual conditions. Lowering the vertical alignment of 1-25 would limit views of motorists, while opening . the view to adjacent properties and to motorists of the raised cross street. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 to 12 feet. Nine bridges that make up the Visual Quality 3.14-22 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. US 34 interchange would be constructed in two levels. One level approximately 24 feet above the existing US 34 and another level approximately 48 feet above existing US 34. The US 34 eastbound and westbound by-pass over LCR 5, and the US 34 over Rocky Mountain Avenue would require relocation of businesses. The increase of size and vertical alignment of the US 34 interchange would have a high visual effect to the vehicular traveler and adjacent properties. Nine bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be modified or reconstructed at the same elevation as the structures that they are replacing. The reconstruction of existing structures would have a minor visual effect to a highway that already has structures in these locations. Eighteen bridges and box culverts would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Four bridges and box culverts are proposed to be constructed with a grade change from 6 to 12 feet. Three bridges are proposed to be rebuilt at a grade change of 28 feet. The introduction of numerous retaining walls over 15 feet in height, a sound wall, reconstructed bridges, and interchanges would have a high visual effect overall because these structures would block views and require relocation of residences or businesses. Carpool Lots. Three carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: the northeastern corner of 1-25 and SH 14, the northwestern corner of 1-25 and Prospect and the southwestern corner of 1-25 and SH 402 (alternative location at the southeastern corner). The carpool lots consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the carpool lots would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the carpool lots. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant • impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lots would have a minor visual effect because they do not block views and do not require relocation of businesses or residences. B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes (SH 60 to E-470) Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from SH 60 to E-470 would require the addition of a new buffer-separated TEL in each direction. The widening of the highway from SH 60 to E-470 would require relocation of businesses and naturalized type landscaping. The greater expanse of pavement, from 128 feet to 152 feet between SH 66 and SH 7, would result in a change in the visual experience for the motorist. The highway widening and relocation of businesses would represent a moderate effect to the surrounding community. Structural Impacts. The location and heights of nine B-H3 retaining walls greater than 15 feet in height are included in Table 3.14-21. These walls would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. • Visual Quality 3.14-23 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-21 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H3 Retaining Wall Impacts Motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range Surrounding (feet/inches) Community? North of WCR 36, south of WCR 38 on 1-25 6'-0"to 18'-5" Surrounding community North of WCR 34, south of WCR 36 on 1-25 23'-5"to 32'-5" Surrounding community North of WCR 34, south of WCR 36 on 1-25 3'-5"to 25-6" Surrounding community North of WCR 28, south of SH 66 on 1-25 12'-5"to 39'-0" Surrounding community North of 160th, south of SH 7 on 1-25 2'-0"to 20'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 11'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 12'-0"to 25'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and 1-25 11'-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community SH 7 and I-25 13'-0"to 18'-0" Surrounding community Seven interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt at the same height that exists today. Rebuilding the interchanges at the same heights would have a minor effect on visual conditions. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a change to the vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 56 would be modified to have 1-25 go over SH 56. Lowering the vertical alignment of SH 56 would limit the views of adjacent properties to the mountains and • surrounding development and improve views of motorists on 1-25. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would overall have a moderate effect to visual conditions because it would block and impede views to the mountains. Eighteen bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same elevation as the structures that they are replacing. Eleven bridges and box culverts would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Six bridges and box culverts would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 to 14 feet. The introduction of numerous retaining walls over 15 feet in height, reconstructed bridges, and interchanges would have a high visual effect overall because these structures would block views and require relocation of residences or businesses. Carpool Lots. Three carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: the southeastern corner of 1-25 and SH 60, the northwestern corner of 1-25 and SH 56, and the southwestern corner of 1-25 and SH 66. The carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the carpool lots would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the carpool lots. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of a carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it would not block views or require relocation of businesses or residences. • Visual Quality 3.14-24 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. B-H4 Tolled Express Lane (E-470 to US 36) Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from E-470 to just south of US 36 would require the addition of one buffer-separated TEL in each direction, which would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The greater expanse of pavement, from 136 feet to 176 feet between SH 7 and US 36, would result in a change in the visual experience for the motorist. This would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because widening would require relocation of businesses or residences. Structural Impacts. The location and heights of 23 B-H4 retaining walls greater than 15 feet in height are included in Table 3.14-22. These walls would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. Two retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less, these would have a moderate visual effect. Table 3.14-22 Retaining Wall Locations in Component B-H4 Retaining Wall Height Retaining Wall Location Range Impacts Motorist or (feet/inches) Surrounding Community? North of US 36,south of 84th on 1-25 2'-0"to 20'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th , south of 88th on 1-25 31'-0"to 32'-0" Motorist North of 84th,south of 88th on 1-25 26'-0"to 27'-0" Motorist North of 84th,south of 88th on 1-25 15'-0"to 30'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 3'-0"to 20'-0" Surrounding community • North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 17'-0"to 34'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 2'-0"to 17'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 2'-0"to 16'-0' Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 4'-0"to 14'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 5'-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 4'-O"to 33'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 88th on 1-25 5,-0"to 16'-0" Surrounding community North of 84th, south of Thornton Pkwy on 1-25 2'-0"to 28'-0" Motorist North of 84th, south of 104th on 1-25 2'-0"to 20-0" Surrounding community South of 104th and 1-25 3'-0"to 15'-0" Motorist 104th and 1-25 26'-0"to 28'-0" Surrounding community 104th and 1-25 2'-0"to 17'-0" Surrounding community 104th and 1-25 3'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community 104th and 1-25 9'-0"to 19'-0" Surrounding community North of 104th,south of 112th on 1-25 3'-0"to 22'-0" Surrounding community 112th and 1-25 2'-0"to 29'-0" Surrounding community 120th and 1-25 14'-0"to 19'-0" Surrounding community 120th and 1-25 8'-0"to 24'-0" Surrounding community North of 120th, south of 128th on 1-25 2'-0"to 31'-0" Surrounding community North of 128th, south of 136th on 1-25 10'-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community • Visual Quality 3.14-25 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The location and heights of the four B-H4 sound walls are provided in Table 3.14-23. This would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. Table 3.14-23 Sound Wall Locations in Component B-H4 East/VVest Sound Wall Sound Wall Sound Wall Location Side of 1-25 Height Range Length (feet/inches) (feet) North of 128th Ave on 1-25, Thorncreek East 14' 1,850' North of Community Center Drive on 1-25 EasUWest 14' 1,300' North of Thornton Parkway on 1-25, West 10'-12' 600' Badding Reservoir North of US 36 on 1-25 East 12' 1,300' One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt at the same vertical alignment that exists today. Two interchanges would be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Six bridges and box culverts in the project area are proposed to be reconstructed at the same elevation as the structures that they are replacing. Four bridges and box culverts would be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. The introduction of new retaining walls, sound walls, and reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would have a moderate visual effect overall to a highway that already has sound walls, bridges, and interchanges in these • locations. Table 3.14-24 summarizes visual impacts from highway widening and structure upgrades under each Package B highway component. Table 3.14-24 Package B Highway Effects Analysis Components Widening Effect Structural Effect B-H1 Minor Moderate B-H2 Moderate High B-H3 Moderate High B-H4 Moderate Moderate B-T1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver BRT Impacts. BRT is proposed to travel on arterial roads and share the TEL lanes on 1-25. When BRT travels on arterial roads, it would function similar to commuter bus. The BRT would load and unload passengers in the park-and-ride or at an on-street bus stop. When BRT travels on 1-25, the BRT would stop at a platform located in the median of 1-25. The new TEL lanes would represent a minor visual effect to the surrounding community. BRT Stations. Typical BRT stations would include one platform that is 20 feet in width by 300 feet in length, a pedestrian overpass, parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting and landscaping. The lighting associated with the BRT stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the BRT • stations. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. A pedestrian overpass would be provided from the median platform over 1-25 to the proposed park-and-ride with the exception of SH 7 where the grade separated cross street Visual Quality 3.14-26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. would be utilized for pedestrian connectivity. The pedestrian overpass would be 17 feet, 6 inches from the top of road to the bottom of the bridge. For stations located on 1-25, barriers would run parallel on the east and west sides of the bus loading lanes at the platform. BRT stations that are not located on the 1-25 corridor would not include the platform or pedestrian overpass. Instead, these stations would function similar to commuter bus stations. Table 3. 14-15 summarizes visual impacts associated with BRT stations . The Windsor and Firestone stations would have a high visual effect because these locations would require relocation of a business or residence and the stations would impede views to the mountains. Figure 3. 14-4 and Figure 3. 14-5 are visual simulations that depict the Windsor BRT station. Figure 3.14-4 Windsor Station, View from BRT Plaza •i`o'n': - r� 1 n�'';. sOS t !' - ' 111 . e 0 n t } 7. . I ' - - __ - — n , jjJ ,______ • __ _____ — i __ ----- _ ____ _it_ ______ ___ Figure 3.14-5 Windsor Station, View from BRT Loading/Unloading Zone k. Inc - J ...,....La son.m ! .....�....n- ! loom,... — 1 r- ` -. �m ii- 1— 4y lrte,, 1 _ ____T _ - - - - I -�- _ �' III I'I'1�17l . � y _ -- __, E' t •c 0 Visual Quality 3.14-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-25 Package B BRT Stations Effects Analysis Station Name Effect Classification South Fort Collins Transfer Center None* Minor Harmony Road and Timberline None* Minor 1-25 and Harmony Road None* Minor Windsor Pedestrian overpass may impede view High Crossroads Boulevard Block views to the mountains Moderate Berthoud Block views to the mountains Moderate Firestone Relocation of business High Frederick/Dacono Block views to the mountains Moderate 1-25 and SH 7 None* Minor US 34 and SH 257 None* Minor Greeley Downtown Transfer Center None* Minor West Greeley None* Minor *The visual impact of these sites would include one or more of the following: new landscaping and addition of a large mass of asphalt.These impacts have been determined to represent negligible visual impact and not diminish the visual character of the area. Stations at Crossroads, Berthoud, and Frederick/Dacono would have moderate visual effects to the surrounding community. The stations would impede views to the mountains, including Longs Peak, but would not require relocation of any businesses. • Stations at South Fort Collins Transit Center, Harmony Road and Timberline, 1-25 and Harmony Road, 1-25 and SH 7, Greeley Downtown Transfer Center, West Greeley, and US 34 and SH 257 would have a minor effect because these locations would not require relocation of any businesses and would not block views to the mountains. Maintenance Facility. Two bus maintenance facility locations are being considered in Package B. The standard maintenance facility would consist of offices, dispatch/driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking. Table 3.14-26 summarizes visual impacts associated with each of the proposed bus maintenance facility locations. Table 3.14-26 Maintenance Facility Effects Analysis Maintenance Facility Name Impact Classification Portner Road and Trilby Road Visible to surrounding community Moderate 31st Street and 1st Avenue Visible to surrounding community Moderate Portner Road and Trilby Road. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and to residential and commercial buildings. Additional traffic would be added to local streets. The maintenance facility would be visible to Trilby Road and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment. • Visual Quality 3.14-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 31st Street and 1st Avenue. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and commercial development. The maintenance facility would be visible to 31st Street and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment. B-T2 Bus Rapid Transit Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA Summary of Package B Impacts Direct Impacts. Package B highway and transit improvements would include rebuilding interchanges, the replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots, platforms, shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreen, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpass, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, and landscaping. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, such as Longs Peak to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect on the visual quality of the corridor. Both Package B highway and transit components would result in short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long-term impacts would be the result of permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Package B short-term impacts would include detours, increase in roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These • short-term effects would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term effects would include the relocation of businesses and residences, new interchanges, increased right- of-way, addition of station amenities, and changes to the surrounding landscape through use of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, and medians, as well as from alterations to the existing roadway grade. Indirect Impacts. The proposed Package B highway and transit improvements could encourage development, therefore, changing the landscape character as described in this section. The addition of stations and a maintenance facility would add additional traffic to local streets. Both the stations and maintenance facility also would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. 3.14.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Visual impacts are discussed below for transportation improvement components in the Preferred Alternative. 1-25 Highway Improvements (SHI to US 36) Visual elements associated with highway improvements include highway widening, reconstruction and modification of interchanges, replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots. Retaining walls are proposed in areas that require them. Retaining walls would be either the CD0T standard retaining walls or mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls and would range • up to 50 feet- 6 inches in height. If the retaining wall extends upward from 1-25, it would reduce the visual effect from the highway to surrounding homes and businesses while limiting Visual Quality 3.14-29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • motorists' views. If the retaining wall extends downward from 1-25, it would limit the views of the surrounding homes to the surrounding community and long-range views from areas east of 1-25 to the mountains. Sound walls are proposed in areas which currently do not have them. The new sound walls would range from 8 to 18 feet in height. While new sound walls would reduce noise impacts to the surrounding community, they could increase visual impacts. The new sound walls would reduce the visual effect of the highway on surrounding homes and businesses while limiting motorists' views and long-range views of the surrounding community. 1-25 Highway Widening. The widening of the highway from SH 1 to north of SH 14 would require the widening of both the inside and outside shoulders in each direction. The ultimate cross section would utilize some of the existing grass median but retain 32 feet of grass. A tension cable barrier and grass median would be included at all locations. The widening of the highway from SH 1 to SH 14 would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The greater expanse of pavement from 76 feet to 128 feet would result in a change in the visual experience of the motorist. This would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because widening would require relocation of businesses or residences. The reduction in grassy area from 56 feet to 32 feet would accentuate the experience of an expanse of pavement. This is a reduction in grassy area both from the existing situation and when compared with the other two packages. The widening of the highway from SH 14 to SH 66 would require the addition of one general purpose lane and one buffer separated TEL in each direction. This would require widening of • both the inside and outside shoulders. The ultimate cross section would utilize some of the existing grass median but retain 32 feet of grass. A tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with a grass median. The widening of the highway from SH 14 to SH 66 would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The greater expanse of pavement from 68 feet to 184 feet would result in a change in the visual experience of the motorist. This would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because widening would require relocation of businesses or residences. The reduction in grassy area from 56 feet to 32 feet would accentuate the experience of an expanse of pavement. This is a reduction in grassy area both from the existing situation and when compared with the other two packages. The widening of the highway from SH 66 to SH 7 would require the addition of one buffer separated TEL in each direction. The ultimate cross section would utilize some of the existing grass median but retain 32 feet of grass. A tension cable barrier would be included in all locations with a grass median. The widening of the highway from SH 66 to SH 7 would require the relocation of residences and businesses. The greater expanse of pavement from 68 feet to 184 feet would result in a change in the visual experience of the motorist. This would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because widening would require relocation of businesses or residences. The reduction in grassy area from 56 feet to 32 feet would accentuate the experience of an expanse of pavement. This is a reduction in grassy area both from the existing situation and when compared with Package A. The widening of the highway from SH 7 to US 36 would require the addition of one buffer separated TEL in each direction. The widening would occur to the outside. The widening of the highway from SH 7 to US 36 would require the relocation of residences and businesses. • Similar to the existing cross section, northbound and southbound lanes would be separated with a concrete barrier. The greater expanse of pavement, from 136 feet to 178 feet between Visual Quality 3.14.30 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. SH 7 and US 36, would result in additional pavement changing the visual experience for the motorist. This would have a moderate effect on visual conditions because widening would require relocation of businesses or residences. -25 Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-27 identifies the location and heights of 98 retaining walls greater than 15 feet in height. These would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community, because views toward 1-25 and beyond would be blocked by the wall. Eighty six retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less, these would have a moderate visual effect. Retaining walls under 5 feet high were not identified. Table 3.14-27 I-25 Highway Improvements (SH 1 to US 36)Wall Locations Retaining Wall Impacts motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range surrounding (feet/inches) community? Near SH 1 and 1-25(NW quadrant) 8'-0"to 26'-0" Motorist Near SH 1 and 1-25(SE quadrant) 5'-0"to 15'-6" Motorist Near SH 1 and 1-25(SW quadrant) 13'-0"to 19'-6" Motorist Near LCR 58 and 1-25 5'-0"to 6'-6" Motorist North of LCR 58, south of SH and 1-25 5'-O"to 9'-6" Motorist North of SH 14, near GWRR on 1-25 5'-6"to 26'-6" Motorist Near SH 14 and 1-25 10'-6"to 21-6" Motorist Near SH 14 and 1-25 5'-O"to 8'-6" Motorist Near SH 14 and 1-25 5'-O"to 6'-6" Surrounding community • Near SH 14 and 1-25 18'-6"to 30'-0" Surrounding community Near SH 14 and 1-25 12'-0"to 27'-6" Motorist South of Prospect Rd, near GWRR on 1-25 5'-0"to 15'-0" Motorist South of Prospect Rd, near GWRR on 1-25 7'-0"to 21'-0" Motorist Near Harmony Road and 1-25 5'-0"to 28'-6" Motorist Near Harmony Road and 1-25, on Harmony Road 5-0" Motorist Near Harmony Road and 1-25, on Harmony Road 5'-0"to 6'-0" Motorist Near Harmony Road and 1-25 5'-0"to 25'-0" Motorist Near LCR 36 and 1-25 9'-0"to 17-6" Motorist Near LCR 36 and 1-25 5'-0"to 26'-0" Motorist Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on 1-25 5'-0" Motorist Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on 1-25 19'-0"to 28'-0" Motorist Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on I-25 5'-0"to 10'-6" Motorist Near SH 392 and 1-25 5'-0"to 21'-6" Motorist Near SH 392 and 1-25 5'-0"to 8'-6" Motorist Near Crossroads Blvd and 1-25 3'-O"to 28'-6" Motorist North of US 34, near UPRR 5`-0"to 14'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(NW Quadrant) 5'-0"to 9'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25(NW Quadrant) 6'-O"to 26'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(NW Quadrant) 5'-0"to 9'-O" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(NW Quadrant) 5'-0"to 9'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25(NW Quadrant) 5'-0"to 11'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(NW Quadrant) 12'-0"to 26'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (NW Quadrant) 19'-6"to 32'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (NW Quadrant) 5'-0"to 8'-6" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 (NW Quadrant) 6'-0"to 25'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (SW Quadrant) 5'-0"to 24'-6" Motorist • Near US 34 and 1-25 (SW Quadrant) 8'-0"to 23'-O" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (SW Quadrant) 5'-0"to 8'-6" Motorist Visual Quality 3.14-31 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Table 3.14-27 I-25 Highway Improvements (SH1 to US 36) Wall Locations (cont'd) Retaining Wall Impacts motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range surrounding (feet/inches) community? Near US 34 and 1-25 (SW Quadrant) 11'-6"to 45'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 (SW Quadrant) 10'-0"to 40'-6" Motorist and Surrounding Community Between LCR 20E and GWRR 36'-6"to 42'-6" Surrounding community Between LCR 20E on1-25 7'-0"to 44'-0" Surrounding community South of LCR 20E on 1-25 5'-6"to 23'-6" Motorist Between SH 402 and LCR 20E on 1-25 20'-0"to 33'-0" Motorist South of SH 402 on 1-25 26'-6"to 33'-6" Motorist South of SH 402 on 1-25 31'-0"to 40'-0" Motorist Near SH 60 and 1-25 28'-6"to 36'-0" Motorist North of SH 14, near GWRR on 1-25 5'-0"to 19'-0" Surrounding community Near SH 14 and 1-25 7'-0"to 19'-0" Motorist Near SH 14 and 1-25 5'-0"to 24'-6" Motorist Near SH 14 and 1-25 5'-0"to 14'-0" Motorist and Surrounding Community South of Prospect Rd, near GWRR on 1-25 13'-6"to 30'-0" Motorist North of Harmony Road on 1-25 11'-0"to 13'-6" Motorist Near Harmony Road and 1-25 8'-0"to 13'-0" Motorist Near LCR 36 and 1-25 8'-0"to 15'-6" Motorist Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on 1-25 9'-6"to 13'-6" Motorist Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on 1-25 13'-0"to 16'-0" Motorist Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on 1-25 14'-6"to 22'-0" Motorist III Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on 1-25 21'-0"to 25'-0" Motorist Between SH 392 and LCR 36 on 1-25 16'-6"to 24'-0" Motorist Near SH 392 and 1-25 5'-0"to 14'-0" Surrounding community Near SH 392 and 1-25 10,-0"to 17'-6" Motorist Between Crossroads Blvd and SH 392, near LCR 30 6'-6"to 10'-6" Motorist Between Crossroads Blvd and SH 392, near LCR 30 11'-6"to 15'-6" Motorist North of Crossroad Blvd on 1-25 5'-0"to 16'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (NE Quadrant) 5'-0"to 32'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (NE Quadrant) 36'-0"to 50'-6" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25(NE Quadrant) 6'-6"to 11'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(NE Quadrant) 5'-0"to 13'-6" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25(NE Quadrant) 17'-0"to 28'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (NE Quadrant) 17'-6"to 29'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (NE Quadrant) 7'-0"to 18'-0" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 (NE Quadrant) 18'-0"to 26'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(SE Quadrant) 18'-6"to 27'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(SE Quadrant) 14'-6"to 19'-6" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25(SE Quadrant) 19'-0"to 30'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (SE Quadrant) 15'-0"to 29'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (SE Quadrant) 5'-0"to 33'-6" Surrounding community Near US 34 and 1-25 (SE Quadrant) 6'-0"to 10'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(SE Quadrant) 28'-0"to 34'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(SE Quadrant) 5'-0"to 36'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25(SE Quadrant) 20'-6"to 38'-6" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (SE Quadrant) 5'-0"to 19'-0" Motorist Near US 34 and 1-25 (SE Quadrant) 5'-6"to 19'-0" Surrounding community IP Visual Quality 3.14-32 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS • — information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-27 I-25 Highway Improvements (SH1 to US 36)Wall Locations (cont'd) Retaining Wall Impacts motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range surrounding (feet/inches) community? Near US 34 and 1-25(SE Quadrant) 20'-0"to 27'-0" Surrounding community North of GWRR 2 on 1-25 33'-0"to 35'-0" Surrounding community Between LCR 20E and GWRR 31-6"to 35'-6" Surrounding community South of LCR 20E on 1-25 15'-6"to 31'-6" Surrounding community South of LCR 20E on 1-25 13'-0"to 21'-6" Motorist South of LCR 20E on 1-25 8'-0"to 18'-6" Motorist Between SH 402 and LCR 20E on 1-25 5'-6"to 12'-6" Motorist South of SH 402 on 1-25 20'-6"to 28'-0" Motorist South of SH 402 on 1-25 28'-6"to 29'-0" Motorist North of LCR 16 on 1-25 7'-6"to 14'-0" Motorist Near SH 60 and 1-25,on SH 60 5'-0"to 16'-6" Motorist Near SH 56 and 1-25 12'-6"to 27'-6" Motorist Near SH 56 and 1-25 10'-6"to 13'-0" Motorist Near SH 56 and 1-25 (Little Thompson River) 16'-6"to 18'-6" Motorist Near SH 56 and 1-25(Little Thompson River) 18'-0"to 20'-0" Motorist Between WCR 38 and SH 56 on 1-25 12'-6"to 30'-0" Motorist Between WCR 38 and SH 56 on 1-25 5'-0"to 30'-0" Motorist North of WCR 34 near GWRR on 1-25 29'-0"to 37'-6" Motorist North of WCR 34 and 1-25 5'-0"to 30'-0" Motorist Near WCR 32 and 1-25 7'-6"to 28'-6" Motorist • Near WCR 32 and 1-25 19'-0"to 27'-0" Motorist Near SH 52 and 1-25 5'-0"to 16'-0" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 5'-0"to 13'-6" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 11-0"to 16'-6" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 13'-0"to 18'-6" Motorist Near SH 7 and I-25 16'-0"to 23'-6" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 5'-0"to 8'-0" Motorist South of SH 7 and 1-25, on 1-25 5'-0"to 21'-0" Motorist Between 144th Ave& Northwest Parkway on 1-25 5'-0"to 6'-6" Motorist Near SH 56 and 1-25 (Little Thompson River) 5'-0"to 8'-6" Motorist Near SH 56 and 1-25 (Little Thompson River) 6'-0"to 11'-6" Motorist South of WCR 38 on 1-25 11-0"to 15'-0" Motorist North of WCR 34 near GWRR on 1-25 5'-0"to 13'-0" Motorist Near WCR 32 and 1-25 5'-6"to 28'-6" Motorist Near WCR 32 and 1-25 7'-0"to 26'-6" Motorist North of SH 52 and 1-25 5'-0"to 13'-0" Motorist North of SH 52 and 1-25 5'-0"to 12'-0" Motorist North of SH 7 on 1-25 5'-0"to 10'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 7 on 1-25 5'-0"to 10'-0" Surrounding community Near SH 7 and 1-25 15'-0"to 18'-6" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 14'-6"to 26'-6" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 5'-6"to 17'-0" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 5'-0"to 6'-0" Motorist Near SH 7 and 1-25 Motorist Between 144th Ave and Northwest Parkway 6'-6"to 8'-0" Motorist Near Big Dry Creek and 1-25 10'-0"to 14'-0" Motorist Near Big Dry Creek and 1-25 6'-6"to 14'-0" Motorist O South of Big Dry Creek on 1-25 5'-0"to 10'-0" Motorist South of 128th Ave on 1-25 5'-0"to 8'-6" Motorist *No height data.Wall for detention pond. Visual Quality 3.14-33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 3.14-27 I-25 Highway Improvements (SH1 to US 36)Wall Locations (cont'd) Retaining Wall Impacts motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range surrounding (feet/inches) community? Near 120th Ave and 1-25 5'-0"to 36'-6" Motorist Between Community Center Drive and Wagon Road 5'-6"to 36'-0" Motorist on 1-25 Near Community Center Drive on 1-25 6'-0"to 14'-0" Motorist Near 104th Avenue on 1-25 5'-0"to 12'-0" Surrounding community Near 104th Avenue and 1-25,to existing Pedestrian 5'-0"to 12'-0" Motorist Overpass Near 104th Avenue and 1-25 5'-0"to 7'-0" Motorist South of 104th Avenue on 1-25 5'-0"to 10,-0" Motorist South of 104th Avenue Motorist Near Thornton Parkway and 1-25,on 1-25 7'-0"to 8'-6" Surrounding community Near Thornton Parkway and 1-25, on 1-25 5'-0"to 10'-0" Surrounding community Near 88th Avenue and 1-25, on 1-25 5'-0"to 10,-0" Near 88th Avenue and RTD underpass on 1-25 5'-0"to 10'-0" Surrounding community South of 88th Avenue Motorist Near 88th Avenue and RTD underpass on 1-25 5'-6"to 10'-0" Motorist Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 5'-0"to 12'-0" Surrounding community Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 5'-0"to 17'-0" Motorist Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 9,-0"to 10'-6" Motorist Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 5'-0"to 9'-6" Motorist Between 84th Avenue and US 36 on 1-25 5'-0"to 12'-0" Motorist III South of 1-270/US 36/ 1-25 interchange 5'-0"to 10'-0" Surrounding community South of 1-270/US 36/ 1-25 Interchange 5'-0"to 10,-0" Surrounding community _ Between 144th Avenue and Northwest Parkway 5'-0"to 10,-0" Motorist on 1-25 Between 144th Avenue and Northwest Parkway 8'-6"to 9'-6" Motorist on 1-25 Between 136th Avenue and 144th Avenue on 1-25 6'-0"to 6'-6" Motorist Near Big Dry Creek and 1-25 5'-0"to 15'-6" Motorist Near Big Dry Creek and 1-25 6'-0"to 15'-6" Motorist South of Big Dry Creek on 1-25 5'-0"to 9'-0" Motorist Near 120th Avenue and 1-25, on 1-25 5'-6"to 10'-6" Motorist Near 120th Avenue and 1-25 5'-6"to 15'-6" Motorist Near 120th Avenue and 1-25 5'-0'to 11'-6" Motorist North of Wagon Road on 1-25 14'-0"to 19'-6" Motorist Near Wagon Road on 1-25 5'-0"to 6,-0" Motorist Near Community Center Drive on 1-25 5'-0"to 11'-0" Motorist South of Community Center Drive 9'-6"to 12'-0" Motorist Between 104th Avenue and Community Center 7'-0"to 16'-0" Motorist Drive, on 1-25 Near 104th Avenue and Community Center Drive 7'-0'to 16'-0" Motorist on 1-25 Near 104th Avenue 7'-0"to 10,-0" Motorist Near 104th Avenue 5'-0"to 20'-0" Motorist Near 104th Avenue 5'-0"to 14'-0" Motorist Between Thornton Parkway and 104th Avenue 5'-0"to 10,-0" Surrounding community Between Thornton Parkway and 104th Avenue 5'-0"to 10'-0" Motorist Near Thornton Parkway and 1-25 7'-6"to 12'-0" Surrounding community • Near Thornton Parkway and 1-25 7'-0"to 10'-0" Surrounding community *No height data.Wail for detention pond. Visual Quality 3.14-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-27 I-25 Highway Improvements (SH1 to US 36) Wall Locations (cont'd) Retaining Wall Impacts motorist or Retaining Wall Location Height Range surrounding community? (feet/inches) Near 88th Avenue and 1-25 5'-0"to 30'-6" Motorist Near 88th Avenue and 1-25, on 88th Avenue 5-0"to 9'-6" Motorist Near 88th Avenue and RTD underpass 12'-6 to 37'-0" Motorist Near 88th Avenue and RTD underpass 8'-0"to 15-0" Motorist Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 13'-6"to 16'-0" Motorist Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 10'-6"to 11-6" Surrounding community Near 84th Avenue and 1-25, on 84th Avenue 7'-6"to 12'-0" Motorist Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 10'-6" Motorist Near 84th Avenue and 1-25 5'-0"to 11'-6" Motorist South of 84th Avenue on 1-25 5'-0"to 11'-6" Motorist Between E 70th and US 76 Motorist Between E 70th and US 76 * Motorist North of US 36 on 1-25 5'-6"to 31'-0" Motorist *No height data.Wall for detention pond. Proposed retaining walls that are identified to impact the surrounding community could block views to the west of the mountains for short distances. Many of the North Front Range communities comprising the regional study have unimpeded views to the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, including Longs Peak and Mount Meeker. The Preferred Alternative has • 98 retaining walls that are greater than 15 feet, while Package A has 32 retaining walls greater than 15 feet and Package B has 53 retaining walls greater than 15 feet. The number of retaining walls increased in the Preferred Alternative to minimize and avoid environmental and right-of-way impacts. While the Preferred Alternative does have more retaining walls than Package A and Package B, the proposed retaining walls would have a minor impact relative to the large scale of the views. The locations of the sound walls are provided in Table 3.14-28. The introduction of sound walls would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community. The proposed sound walls would not impact significant views for the surrounding communities of the mountains. Table 3.14-28 Sound Wall Locations in the Preferred Alternative East/West Side Sound Wall Sound Wall Sound Wall Location of I-25 Height Range Length (feet/inches) North of SH 1 on 1-25 West 10'-12' 1,000' South of SH 392 and North of CR 30 on 1-25 at West 12' 2,500' Mountain Range Shadows North of 128th Ave on 1-25, Thorncreek East 14' 1,850' North of Community Center Drive on 1-25 East 14' 1,300' North of Community Center Drive on 1-25 West 10'-12' 600' North of Thornton Parkway on 1-25, Badding West 12' 900' Reservoir • North of US 36 on 1-25 East 12' 1,000' Visual Quality 3.14-35 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Eight interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt at the same height that exists today. Rebuilding the interchanges at the same heights would have a minor effect on visual conditions. Nine interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Three interchanges are proposed to be rebuilt with a change to the vertical alignment. The interchange of 1-25 and SH 402 would be modified to have SH 402 go over 1-25, the interchange of 1-25 and LCR 16 would be modified to have LCR 16 go over 1-25 and the interchange of 1-25 and SH 56 would be modified to have 1-25 go over SH 56. Modifying the vertical alignment of 1-25 and the cross street would have a moderate effect to visual conditions. Lowering the vertical alignment of 1-25 would limit views of motorists, while opening the view to adjacent properties and to motorists of the raised cross street. One interchange is proposed to be rebuilt with a grade change of 6 to 12 feet. Forty-three bridges and concrete box culverts (CBC) in the project area are proposed to be modified or reconstructed at the same elevation as the bridges that they are replacing. The reconstruction of existing structures would have a minor visual effect to a highway that already has structures in these locations. Thirty five bridges and CBC would be reconstructed with a grade change of 6 feet or less. Ten bridges and CBC are proposed to be constructed with a grade change from 6 to 14 feet. Nine bridges that make up the US 34 interchange would be constructed in two levels. One level would be approximately 24 feet above the existing US 34 and another level approximately 48 feet above existing US 34. The US 34 eastbound and westbound by-pass over LCR 5, and the US 34 over Rocky Mountain Avenue would require relocation of businesses. The increase of size and vertical alignment of the US 34 interchange would have a high visual effect to the vehicular traveler and adjacent properties. Three bridges are proposed to be rebuilt at a grade change of 28 feet. The introduction of numerous retaining • walls over 15 feet in height, a sound wall, reconstructed bridges, and interchanges would have a high visual effect overall because these structures would block views and require relocation of residences or businesses. The introduction of new retaining walls, sound walls, and reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges for the 1-25 highway improvements would have a moderate visual effect to a highway that already has sound walls, bridges, and interchanges in these locations. The exception would be the US 34 interchange. The increase of size and vertical alignment of the US 34 interchange would have a high visual effect to the vehicular traveler and adjacent properties. Carpool Lots. Five new carpool lots are proposed at the following locations: the southwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 1; the northeast quadrant of 1-25 and SH 14; the northwest quadrant of 1-25 and Prospect; the southwest quadrant of 1-25 and SH 402; and the southeast quadrant of 1-25 and SH 60. Carpool lots would consist of parking, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the carpool lots would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the carpool lots. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. The amount of landscaping depends on municipal standards. The addition of the carpool lot would have a minor visual effect because it does not block any views and would not require the relocation of businesses or residences. Summary of 1-25 Highway Improvements (SHI to US 36) Impacts Direct Impacts. 1-25 highway improvements would include rebuilding interchanges, the • replacement and modification of bridges, new retaining walls, new sound walls, and the addition of carpool lots, and landscaping. The Preferred Alternative proposes widening the Visual Quality 3.14.36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. highway to a larger cross section than proposed in Package A and Package B and proposes more retaining walls and sound walls than the other packages. The number of retaining walls increased in the Preferred Alternative to minimize and avoid environmental and right-of-way impacts. The interchange and bridge impacts are similar for the Preferred Alternative, Package A, and Package B. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, such as Longs Peak and the Front Range to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect on the visual quality of the corridor. The highway improvements would result in short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long-term impacts would be the result of permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Construction of highway improvements, short-term impacts would include detours, increase in roadway congestion in and around the area, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term effects would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term effects would include the relocation of businesses and residences, new interchanges, increased right- of-way, addition of carpool lots, and changes to the surrounding landscape through use of overpasses, bridges, retaining walls, and medians, as well as from alterations to the existing roadway grade. Indirect Impacts. I-25 highway improvements could minimally encourage development, therefore, changing the landscape character as described in this section. The addition of • carpool lots would add traffic to local streets. The carpool lots would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. Express Bus (Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver/DIA) Express Bus Impacts. Express bus is proposed on arterial roads and would share the TELs on 1-25. When the express bus travels on arterial roads, it would function similar to commuter bus. The bus would load and unload passengers in the park-and-ride or at an on-street bus stop. When the express bus travels on 1-25, the bus would stop at a platform located on slip ramps off 1-25, the exception would be the Windsor Station. The slip ramps would be buffer separated from the on and off ramp with a painted 4-foot strip. The slip ramp at the Crossroads Station would be the exception and is proposed to be barrier separated. The new TELs and slip ramps would represent a minor visual effect to the surrounding community. Express Bus Stations. Typical 1-25 express bus stations would include a bus plaza that varies in width, a pedestrian overpass, parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting and landscaping. The lighting associated with the express bus stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the express bus stations. There would be minimal light overspill and no significant impacts on nearby properties and streets. A pedestrian overpass would be provided across 1-25 connecting the slip ramp bus stops. The Windsor Station is the exception and would not have a pedestrian overpass. The pedestrian overpasses would be 17 feet- 6 inches from the top of road to the bottom of the bridge. Express bus stations that are not located on the 1-25 corridor would not include a pedestrian overpass. Instead, these stations would function similar to commuter bus stations. Table 3.14-29 summarizes visual impacts associated with express bus • stations. Visual Quality 3.14-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-29 Express Bus Stations Effects Analysis Station Name Effect Classification Harmony Road and Timberline Negligible* Minor 1-25 and Harmony Road Negligible* Minor Windsor Negligible* Minor Crossroads Boulevard Block views to the mountains Moderate Berthoud Block views to the mountains Moderate Firestone Relocation of Business and High blocks views to the mountains Frederick/Dacono Relocation of Business and High blocks views to the mountains 1-25 and SH 7 Block views to the mountains Moderate US 34 and SH 257 Negligible* Minor Greeley Downtown Transfer Center Negligible* Minor West Greeley Negligible* Minor *The visual impact of these sites would include one or more of the following: new landscaping and addition of a large mass of asphalt.These impacts have been determined to represent negligible visual impact and not diminish the visual character of the area. The South Fort Collins Transit Center and the 1-25 and WCR 8 stations would serve both express bus and commuter rail. Refer to Table 3.14-32 for visual effects as a result of these stations. Stations at Frederick/Dacono and Firestone would have a high visual effect because it would require the relocation of a business or residence and the station would impede views to the • mountains. Stations at Crossroads, Berthoud, Firestone, and 1-25 and SH 7 would have moderate visual effects to the surrounding community. The stations would impede views to the mountains, including Longs Peak, but would not require relocation of any businesses. Stations at Harmony Road and Timberline, 1-25 and Harmony Road, Windsor, Greeley Downtown Transfer Center, West Greeley, and US 34 and SH 257 would have a minor effect because these locations would not require relocation of any businesses and would not block views to the mountains. Maintenance Facility. A maintenance facility located at 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley is proposed. The maintenance facility would consist of offices, dispatch/ driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to vacant land and commercial development. The maintenance facility would be visible to 31st Street and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate effect on the visual environment. Summary of 1-25 Express Bus (Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver/DIA) Impacts Direct Impacts. Express bus improvements would include plazas, shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreens, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpasses, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and rides, lighting, and landscaping. The visual impacts for express bus in the • Preferred Alternative are similar to the visual impacts for BRT in Package B. The design for BRT and express bus are different, but many of the elements that would have a visual impact are the same. Elements such as plazas, shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreens, Visual Quality 3.1438 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpasses, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and rides, lighting, and landscaping would be present for both alternatives, which results in similar visual impacts. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, such as Longs Peak and the Front Range to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect on the visual quality of the corridor. The express bus would result in short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long-term impacts would be the result of permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. The short-term impacts would include the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term effects would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term effects would include the relocation of businesses and residences, increased right-of-way and the addition of station amenities. Indirect Impacts. The proposed express bus service is not anticipated to change development, although there could be some minimal development inducement in the immediate vicinity of the stations. The addition of stations and a maintenance facility would add additional traffic to local streets. Both the stations and maintenance facility also would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. • Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) Commuter Rail Impacts. The commuter rail alignment is proposed to be located in the BNSF railroad right-of-way and use existing BNSF track from the Downtown Transit Center to the Sugar Mill Station. A maintenance road would run parallel to the BNSF line. The new maintenance road would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing BNSF track. East of the Sugar Mill station a new track is proposed to connect the North 1-25 commuter rail service to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. The track would run parallel to SH 119 east from Sugar Mill, turn south and parallel CR 7, then follow the UPRR alignment across 1-25 to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station. Commuter rail track that is not within the BNSF right-of-way would not include a maintenance road. Passing track is proposed for four segments along the commuter rail alignment. Passing track would include a new track that would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of the existing or proposed track. Passing track would be located at the following four locations: ► Beginning at 6th Street in Loveland, continuing north to 0.04 mile south of West 57th Street in Loveland. (Length = 3.7 miles) ► Beginning 0.3 mile south of East CR 6c in Berthoud, continuing north to 0.4 mile north of WCR 14. (Length = 4.5 miles) ► Beginning in Longmont 0.05 mile west of Martin Street, continuing north along existing BNSF corridor to 19th Avenue. (Length = 2.3 miles) • ► Beginning 0.6 mile west of 1-25, continuing north along existing UPRR to 0.3 mile south of CR 20. (Length = 5.2 miles) Visual Quality 3.14-39 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The Preferred Alternative increased visual impacts with the addition of a maintenance road that was not included in Package A. The Preferred Alternative was able to minimize the visual impacts as a result of the maintenance road by reducing tracks from double track to single track with passing tracks. The passing track would have a moderate effect because it would require the relocation of residences and businesses. A six-foot fence would run parallel on the east and west sides of the tracks. The aesthetic and form of the fence would be designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Future coordination with the local jurisdictions regarding fencing, including the use of existing fencing at specific locations along the proposed alignment will need to occur. At all railroad crossings, gates would be upgraded or installed to provide safe crossings and potentially limit horns at crossings. Twelve railroad crossings would be upgraded to a four-quadrant gate. This would add two gates in the medians of the adjacent cross street. Adding gates would reduce noise impacts to the community, but would have a minor visual effect on surrounding businesses and residences. The new track and chain link fence would represent a moderate effect to the surrounding community because they would require relocation of residences and businesses. When the commuter rail alignment uses existing BNSF track but adds a maintenance road, there would be a moderate visual impact because it would require the relocation of a residence or business. The introduction of a passing track or new track from east of the Sugar Mill station to the North Metro end of the line station would require the relocation of residences and businesses and have a moderate visual impact. The relocation of businesses and residences, new track, chain link fence, railroad and crossing elements would have an overall moderate effect on the surrounding community. • Commuter Rail Structural Impacts. Table 3.14-30 identifies the location and height ranges of retaining walls along the Preferred Alternative. There are 11 retaining walls that would be greater than 15 feet in height. This would have a high visual impact. Ten retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less. These would have a moderate visual effect. Table 3.14-30 Retaining Wall Locations in the Preferred Alternative Location Height Range Impacts Transit Rider or (feet/inches) Surrounding Community? East 16th Street to East 22nd Street 1'-2"to 4'-5" Surrounding community West 43rd Street to Filbert Drive 6"to 9'-1" Surrounding community North of CR 10E on the west side of the tracks 1'-6" Surrounding community West of the intersection of SH 119 and 3rd 17'-0"to 26'-0" Surrounding community Avenue West of the intersection of SH 119 and 3rd 3'-5"to 20'-9" Surrounding community Avenue East of the intersection of SH 119 and 3rd 10'-6"to 25'-0" Surrounding community AvenueEast of the intersection of SH 119 and 3rd 10'-6"to 25'-0" Surrounding community Avenue North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 10'-1"to 18'-6" Surrounding community North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 9'-3"to 18'-6" Surrounding community North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 20'-5"to 25'-0" Surrounding community North of SH 52, south of CR 14.5 on CR 7 20'-5"to 25-0" Surrounding community • SH 52 and CR 7 9'-0"to 20'-3" Surrounding community Visual Quality 3.14-40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-30 Retaining Wall Locations in the Preferred Alternative (cont'd) Location Height Range Impacts Transit Rider or (feet/inches) Surrounding Community? SH 52 and CR 7 9'-O"to 20'-3" Surrounding community West of Fairview Street along park 1'-6"to 14'-10" Surrounding community West of CR 7/west of proposed bridge 2'to 4'-2" Surrounding community West side of CR 7 along pond 6"to 1'-5" Surrounding community North of Harbor Drive 6"to 1-7" Surrounding community North of Harbor Drive 6"to 4'-9" Surrounding community South of Harbor Drive 6"to 3'-4" Surrounding community South of Harbor Drive 1'to 1-9" Surrounding community East of 1-25 bridge 13'-2"to 17'-4" Surrounding community Commuter rail in the Preferred Alternative has an increased number of retaining walls than Package A. The proposed retaining walls would not impact significant views for the surrounding communities of the mountains. Table 3.14-31 identifies the location of three sound walls, all of which would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. The proposed sound walls would be used in combination with quite zones that would be implemented by local governments. • Table 3.14-31 Sound Wall Locations in the Preferred Alternative Location East/West Side of Sound Wall Length tracks (Feet) East of 29th St-CR 28 (Loveland) East 1,300 CR 14-CR 18 (Campion) East 500 SR 52-CR 18 (Frederick) West 600 Commuter rail in the Preferred Alternative has a reduced number of sound walls than Package A. The proposed sound walls would not impact significant views for the surrounding communities of the mountains. • Visual Quality 3.14-41 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.14-32 summarizes visual impacts associated with five new commuter rail grade separations Table 3.14-32 New Grade Separations for Commuter Rail in the Preferred Alternative Structure Location and Effect Design Classification SH 52 The new structure over SH 52 would over SH 52 impede Commuter rail goes over views to the Front Range from significant viewers east of Moderate SH 52 the new structure. Wyndham Hill Parkway The new structure over Wyndham Hill Parkway would be Commuter rail goes over visible from residential areas east and west of CR 7. The Moderate Wyndham Hill Parkway new structure impedes views to the Front Range from viewers located east of the new bridge. SH 119 (Longmont) The new structure would affect views from motorist Commuter rail goes over traveling east and west on SH 119. The new structure SH 119 on the eastern side of would be 30 feet above SH 119 and would impede views High Longmont to the mountains from viewers located east of the new bridge. SH 119 and CR 7 (Longmont) The new structure over the gravel pit would not be raised Commuter rail goes over an in height from the surrounding grade. The new structure Minor existing gravel pit. would not impede views. 1-25 (Dacono)South of CR 8 The new structure over 1-25 is replacing a recently Commuter rail would go over removed bridge. The new structure would impact motorist's 1-25 views traveling north and south on 1-25 and residents in Minor the area. • Bridges and box culverts are proposed at ditches and creeks. The bridges over ditches and creeks would not be raised in height from the surrounding grade; therefore, they would have a minor visual effect. The introduction of retaining walls, sound walls, and new bridges for commuter rail would have an overall moderate visual effect on the rail corridor. Commuter Rail Stations. Commuter rail stations would consist of either one or two platforms, which measure 400 feet by 25 feet. When there are two platforms (which occurs at two locations) a pedestrian overpass that is 12 feet wide and 23 feet high would be required between the platforms with elevator and stair towers. Amenities associated with stations would include: shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreen, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpass, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, and landscaping. The lighting associated with the commuter rail stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on commuter rail stations. There would be minimal light overspill. Shielding the light would minimize the impacts of the lights to the surrounding residential and commercial properties. The addition of a parking lot would create an asphalt area. Table 3.14-33 summarizes commuter rail station impacts associated with the preferred alternative. The Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center, CSU, South Fort Collins Transit Center, Downtown Loveland, North Longmont, Longmont at Sugar Mill, and 1-25 and WCR 8 stations are proposed to be served by one platform with no overpass or stair towers required. Berthoud and North Loveland would be served by two platforms with a pedestrian overpass. • Visual Quality 3.14-42 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-33 Commuter Rail Stations Effects Analysis Station Effects Classification Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Relocation of parking lot Moderate Colorado State University None* Minor South Fort Collins Transit Center None* Minor North Loveland Business relocation, views to mountains High blocked Downtown Loveland Parking lot relocation Moderate Berthoud Business relocation, views to mountains High blocked North Longmont None* Minor Longmont at Sugar Mill Business relocation Moderate I-25 and WCR 8 None* Minor FasTracks North Metro None None *The visual impact of these sites would include one or more of the following: new landscaping and addition of a large mass of asphalt.These impacts have been determined to represent negligible visual impact and not diminish the visual character of the area. The North Loveland and Berthoud stations would have a high visual effect because they would require relocation of a business or residence and the station would impede views from the east • to the mountains. Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center, Downtown Loveland and the Longmont at Sugar Mill stations would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community because it would require the relocation of a business or residence. The parking at the Downtown Transit Center is proposed to be a parking structure. The addition of a parking structure would introduce a two-story building in an urban area where the average building height is two to four stories. Stations at CSU, South Fort Collins Transit Center, North Longmont, and 1-25 and WCR 8 would have a minor visual effect to the surrounding community because they would not impede views to the mountains or require the relocation of any businesses or residences. Commuter rail would stop at all of the North Metro corridor stations. These stations have not been included in the analysis since the stations are being designed and built as part of FasTracks and no additional improvements are proposed as part of the North 1-25 Final EIS. Visual simulations depicting a two platform station with vertical circulation at the Berthoud commuter rail station are presented in Figure 3.14-2 and Figure 3.14-3. Maintenance Facility. A commuter rail maintenance facility located in Berthoud is included as a part of the Preferred Alternative. The maintenance facility would consist of additional tracks, offices, dispatch/driver support areas, vehicle maintenance bays, repair shops, vehicle wash areas, fueling facilities, storage, and parking. The land identified to accommodate the maintenance facility is currently vacant. It is adjacent to residential and commercial development. Additional traffic would be added to local streets. The maintenance facility would be visible to motorists on US 287, 3rd Street, and in the surrounding neighborhood. The • proposed maintenance facility would have a moderate visual effect because it would be visible to the surrounding community and change the visual character of the area. Visual Quality 3.14-43 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Summary of Commuter Rail Impacts (Fort Collins to North Metro) Direct Impacts. Commuter rail improvements would include retaining walls, sound walls, tracks, maintenance road, platforms, shelters, fare boxes, benches, windscreens, elevators, stairs, pedestrian overpasses, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and rides, lighting, and landscaping. Commuter rail in the Preferred Alternative reduces the amount of new track and sound walls from Package A, but adds a maintenance road and increased number of retaining walls. Four of the stations that were proposed to have two platforms with a pedestrian overpass, elevators and stairs in Package A, are now proposed to have a single platform with no vertical circulation. The elimination of pedestrian overpasses lessens the visual impact of the stations in Preferred Alternative. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, including Longs Peak to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect to the visual quality of the corridor. The commuter rail improvements would have short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long-term impacts would result from permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Short-term impacts would include detours, the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term impacts would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term impacts include relocation of businesses and residences, increased right-of-way, additions of station amenities, and changes to the surrounding landscape through the use of overpasses, bridges, and retaining walls. • Indirect Impacts. The proposed commuter rail improvements could encourage development that is more compact and dense, especially within walking distance of a commuter rail station. This would change the visual character. Stations and a maintenance facility would add traffic to local streets. Both the stations and maintenance facility would generate lighting that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. US 85 Commuter Bus (Greeley to Denver) Commuter Bus Stations. The standard commuter bus station would include parking, bus bays, kiss and ride, lighting, and landscaping. The amount and type of landscaping would depend on city standards. Table 3.14-34 summarizes visual impacts associated with proposed commuter bus stations. • Visual Quality 3.14-44 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.14-34 Commuter Bus Station Effects Analysis Station Impact Classification Greeley Relocation of business Moderate South Greeley Reconfiguration of existing parking lot Moderate Evans Relocation of residence Moderate Platteville Relocation of business Moderate Fort Lupton Relocation of business Moderate Brighton None None Commerce City None None Denver Union Station None None DIA None None The Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, and Fort Lupton stations would have a moderate visual effect because they would result in the relocation of a business or residence. These stations, however, would not impede views to the mountains. Commuter bus would stop at the existing Brighton park-and-Ride, Denver Union Station, DIA and the proposed Commerce City park-and-Ride. These stations have not been included in the analysis and are assumed to be in existence at the time the EIS improvements and no additional improvements are proposed as part of the North 1-25 Final EIS. Maintenance Facility. The maintenance facility would serve both commuter bus and express • bus. Refer to express bus (Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver/DIA) Maintenance Facility for visual effects as a result of the maintenance facility. Summary of US 85 Commuter Bus (Greeley to Denver) Direct Impacts. Commuter bus improvements would include benches, parking, bike parking, bus bays, kiss and rides, lighting, and landscaping. In a project area that primarily consists of undeveloped agricultural land with extensive views to the mountains, including Longs Peak to the west, most of the proposed improvements would not have a substantial effect to the visual quality of the corridor. The visual impacts for commuter bus in the Preferred Alternative would be the same as Package A. The commuter bus improvements would have short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts would result from disruptions during construction while long-term impacts would result from permanent alterations that change the way people commute in and around the area. Short-term impacts would include the presence of large equipment, dust from construction, and general disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. These short-term impacts would have a temporary visual effect to the community. Long-term impacts include relocation of businesses and residences, and additions of commuter bus station amenities. Indirect Impacts. The proposed commuter bus service is unlikely to noticeably affect development. Commuter bus stations would add traffic to local streets. The stations would generate lighting • that would be seen by motorists, as well as from adjacent businesses and residences. Visual Quality 3.14-45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize adverse visual impacts from proposed highway and transit improvements. Mitigation measures will include providing visual buffers and enhanced architectural treatments to structures. 3.14.4.1 I-25 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS (SH 1 TO US 36) Potential mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effects of the proposed highway improvements will include landscaping and architectural features. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of highway widening will include incorporating landscaping at interchanges and along the highway. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of structural elements will include providing architectural interest or color into retaining walls, sound walls, and reducing the effect of overpasses by providing architectural detailing of the railings and other features. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of carpool lots will include the use of trees in combination with shrubs to filter views to the carpool lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image. Landscape islands with shade trees would be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicles. 3.14.4.2 1-25 EXPRESS Bus (FORT COLLINS/GREELEY TO DENVER/DIA) Potential mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effect of the proposed express • bus improvements will include landscaping, and architectural features. Mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effects of slip ramps will include incorporating landscaping, providing architectural interest or color in retaining wall and limiting lighting to only what is required for safety and security. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of express bus stations will include providing distinctive treatments at station plazas to designate distinct station locations. Local communities, business districts, or other entities should be involved in upgrading or enhancing the currently proposed features. The effects of overpasses will be reduced with architectural detailing of the railing and other features. Station effects will be reduced with the use of trees in combination with shrubs to filter views to the station and parking lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image to attract ridership. Landscape islands with shade trees would be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicles. Lighting at the express bus stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the express bus stations and light overspill is minimized. 3.14.4.3 COMMUTER RAIL (FORT COLLINS TO NORTH METRO) Potential mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effect of the proposed commuter rail service will include fencing types, landscaping, and architectural features. • Visual Quality 3.1446 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Mitigation measures to soften and enhance the visual effects of track widening will include incorporating landscaping, considering vinyl coated chain link fencing, providing architectural interest or color in retaining wall and bridge design, and limiting lighting to only what is required for safety and security. Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of stations will include providing distinctive treatments at platform station locations to designate station locations. Local communities, business districts, or other entities should be involved in upgrading or enhancing the currently proposed features. The effects of overpasses will be reduced with architectural detailing of the railing and other features. Station effects will be reduced with the use of trees in combination with shrubs to filter views to the station and parking lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image to attract ridership. Landscape islands with shade trees will be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicle. Lighting at the commuter rail stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the commuter rail stations and light overspill is minimized. 3.14.4.4 US 85 COMMUTER BUS (GREELEY TO DENVER) Mitigation measures to address the visual effects of commuter bus stations will include providing distinctive treatments to designate distinct station locations. Local communities, business districts, or other entities should be involved in upgrading or enhancing the currently proposed features. Station effects will be reduced with the use of trees in combination with • shrubs to filter views to the station and parking lots, provide a human scale, and present a positive image to attract ridership. Landscape islands with shade trees would be placed in parking lots to break up the expanse of pavement and parked vehicles. Lighting at the commuter bus stations would be designed to minimize shadows. Light sources would be shielded so that night-time lighting is focused on the commuter bus stations and light overspill is minimized. • Visual Quality 3.1447 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Visual Quality 3.14-48 • N oRTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 15 Historic Preservation • • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.15 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 3.15.1 Affected Environment 3.15.1.1 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE What's in Section 3.15? Legislation at the state and federal levels 3.15 Historic Preservation requires that governmental agencies assess the impacts of proposed projects on historic 3.15.1 Affected Environment and archaeological resources before 3.15.1.1 Regulatory Compliance 3.15.1.2 Historical Resources undertaking a project. The federal legislation that protects historic and 3.15.1.3 Archaeological Resources archaeological resources includes Section 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 106 (36 CFR Part 800) of the National 3.15.2.1 Consequences of the Alternatives 3.15.2.2 Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA as Package A, B, and Preferred yand Section 4 f 49 USC 303, Alternative nd e Components amended) ( ) ( 3.15.2.3 Package A and Preferred Sec. 771.135) of the U.S. Department of Alternative Transit Components Transportation Act. 3.15.2.4 Package B Transit Components Section 106 of the NHPA requires that 3.15.3 5.3i 1 No-Action MeasuresAlternative Alternative federal agencies or other agencies 3.15.3.2 Package A undertaking federal actions consider the 3.15.3.3 Package B • effects of their undertakings on historic 3.15.3.4 Preferred Alternative properties. A historic property is defined as 3.15.4 Native American Consultation any prehistoric or historic site, district, structure, building, object or archaeological resource included on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In order to qualify for the NRHP, a property or resource possesses sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet one or more of the following eligibility criteria: Criterion A: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history. Criterion B: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D: The property has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory. The Section 106 process (36 CFR 800.4) includes steps to: 1) identify consulting parties, 2) define an Area of Potential Effect (APE), 3) identify and evaluate historic properties, 4) assess the impacts of an undertaking on the historic properties, and 5) consult with appropriate agencies for techniques to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. The • process for complying with the state legislation (State Register Act Article 80.1, Register of Historic Properties) is similar. Historic Preservation 3.15-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • For the North 1-25 EIS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have formally arranged with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to substitute the project's National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA) documents (Draft and Final EIS) in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to accomplish the Section 106 consultation process. The document substitution process is intended to reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties, by providing detailed information about project impacts associated with the various alternatives in the EIS rather than additional documents. For the North 1-25 EIS, the Section 106 consultation step involving determinations of NRHP- eligibility for all historic and archaeological resources was accomplished by the traditional method of submitting survey reports and site forms to the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties. The survey reports and site forms included the eligibility determinations proposed by CDOT, FHWA, and FTA for SHPO concurrence. A number of resources within the North 1-25 project APE were determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP as a result of past studies and were assumed eligible for this project. After the Draft EIS was released, four additional properties were identified as eligible through consultation. Concurrence on eligibility was received from the SHPO on January 3, 2011. This document provides the formal documentation for consultation on effects for all the alternatives. In addition, the Final EIS includes responses to comments received on the Draft EIS. Following consultation on the effects, the resolution of adverse effects will documented in a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to be signed by CDOT, FHWA, the SHPO and any of the consulting parties that would like to concur with the agreement. Effects for the Preferred • Alternative are in nearly all cases reduced from those presented for Packages A or B. Following consultation on effects, FHWA and CDOT will work to resolve issues with the consulting parties and the SHPO. CDOT sent out letters to all certified local governments in the regional study area as well as a few other agencies and entities with interest in historic preservation officially inviting them to participate as consulting parties in the Section 106 process for this project. Letters were sent to the cities and communities of Berthoud, Brighton, Broomfield, Fort Collins, Fort Lupton, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Northglenn, and Timnath. They were also sent to Boulder County, Colorado Preservation, Inc., and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Responses were received from the following entities agreeing to participate as consulting parties: ► City of Greeley Historic Preservation Office ► City of Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board ► City of Longmont Historic Preservation Commission 3.15.1.2 HISTORICAL RESOURCES Historical Resource Surveys Historical resources were evaluated within the APE. The APE for this project was discussed at several meetings in early 2006 and further evaluated during a field trip with staff from SHPO and CDOT on June 15, 2006. The boundaries of the APE were agreed to by the SHPO in a • letter dated March 12, 2007 (see Appendix E). Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation—the North 1-25 corridor Historic Preservation 3.15-2 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. including queue jumps along US Highway (US) 34 associated with the bus rapid transit or express bus under the Preferred Alternative, a commuter rail corridor, and a commuter bus route along US 85. The APE boundaries for each specific corridor are described in detail under each of the corridor descriptions that follow. Activities undertaken to identify historical resources in the APE included a file search at the Colorado Historical Society, a review of NRHP and State Register of Historic Properties (SRHP) listings, a review of any local landmark listings, a review of previous historical resource assessments in the general area, and field surveys of the APE. Historical Resources From all the historical resources that were surveyed for this project or that had previously been surveyed, 72 were determined eligible for or already listed on the NRHP. These include 35 resources surveyed on the 1-25 corridor, 35 resources surveyed on the commuter rail corridor, and two resources on US 85. This total includes eight resources that have already been listed on the NRHP (see Table 3.15-1). A total of 27 individual historic ditches and canals, made up of 44 linear segments, are located within the APE. The 18 railroad segments comprise linear portions of five railroad lines and one railroad siding within the APE. North 1-25 Corridor • The APE for the North 1-25 corridor includes an area encompassing the maximum area of disturbance for this project, which is generally the existing right-of-way plus portions of adjacent properties. Intensive-level surveys of the historical resources were conducted within the APE. A total of 133 historical resources were surveyed or re-evaluated in this corridor. Linear sites (e.g., railroads, irrigation ditches) are evaluated as segments that are either supporting or non- supporting segments of an entire NRHP-eligible linear resource. Those historical resources eligible for the NRHP are listed in Figure 3.15-1 and Figure 3.15-2 by location from north to south. • Historic Preservation 3.153 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-1 Non-Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect all LEGEND .4e""......--"...... Al Study Corridors .� A./ Highways /.•"" Wellington '� ,/\./ Arterial Roads ! 11-3-51 287 % L___; L Regional Study Area 0 Cities & Towns H �t'r`' ortCollins 2 �� HISTORIC PROPERTIES ! 16'+ 14 / Ault_ 1 WITHIN APE ! 257 , ' 1 5LR.1917 ..___�. _-� Timnath Severance Eaton 2 5LR.11396 j 287 1 3 5LR.11391 I T 1 Windsor ' I Lucerne 392 4 5LR.11210 1 • 5 5LR.11209 eley 1 6 5LR.11408 34 `R_ 4 61 1 7 5LR.11382 '17 Lt,,..-'a i 6 7'. N Garden OILY ' 34 8 5LR.11242 8 j Fans %' 9 5WL.5204 j LaSalle . %" r,,,r. 9 Johnstown li 5WL.5203 I 10 85 /" Berthou 18 0 Milliken Ill 5WL.2985 1956- > / ® 5WL.5198 Gilcre t 3® 5WL.1978 '2 /% ® 5AM.2074 I Mew 0 15 5AM.2073 ' 16 5LR. 11330 6 j �' `- a i32; I I It 17 5LR.488 .- ? lone 11 5LR.530 . .t volirnat o I 19 5LR.12552 / 28 a Firestone ' ♦ . ,20 5BL.9163 ,' NeNnt i 29, a ,edadck __.,_.1 i 7 c 21 5BL.10636 ,! 0 ()mono :it Lupton ' "� . Gunharrel 22 5BL. 1245 a . 23 5BL.1244 i 0 Valmont v 76 r Wattenberc j24 5BL.513 Boulder Nc 110 Latayeliell �25 5BL.7606 lnwcville .` '" -1 Brighton a5WL.5278 N., Superor i e+:o _ / N. I ® 5WL.712 'N. Eastlake . 5WL6564 ©rosnlielti a Henderson ■ 5WL.5263 93 36 uru:ylenn ■ 5WL.322 \ 287 Thornton %• III 5WL.5296 / III 5WL.568 7� "'N.\ ‘ � " I Denver 70 0 2 4 6 8 10 IIMMIll-ilittr_I Miles North ) I ( N ii . , --1 1 i Historic Preservation 3.15-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIll . Figure 3.15-2 Linear Historical Resources within the Area of Potential Effect LEGEND ______ Al Study Corridors / Wellington ,^/ Highways ,-/ 85 /` „./ Arterial Roads l2o'J i \ �� J Regional Study Area , '. _ O Cities & Towns ! 5LR.863.2 _ Historic Railroads and Ditches 5LR.1731 .1 F.4 Collins `, Aultt 14 5LR.1327.6 , 1 I 5LR.1731 .1 4-q-- .----. ._ , 5LR.2160.1 evarr ,.i, Lit Al 5LR.8930.2 i 287 5LR.8930.1 1, •, ,. 0 1 15LR.8928.1 { e,ne 3s2 5LR.1731 .1 ; 1 5LR.503.2 Greeley 1 5LR.850.5 i 5LR.1815.2 i263 5LR.1731 .1 `" • . •� Garden Cay, Loveland 5LR.1815.3 ! f 34 5LR.1731 .1 r, � �, 5LR.503.4 5LR.850.1 / v sane . f 5LR.8928.7 i Campion so_ 5LR.8927.1 -,, 85 ;i rthoud r.4r6�..,n , 5LR.1710.1 = 56 ' 5WL.841 .11 5WL864 I 05LR.1731 .1 1 v i I 5BL.3449.2 a 5WL.841 .9 j/ 5BL.400.3 - --- 5WL.2877.1 5BL.3114.28 66 - 4-- .- 5WL.1975.1 1-it- 5BL.3113.67 Longr ont 5WL.1974.1 i'f ►—______--- 5WL.3146.1 5BL.4832.28 / ! ►.- 5WL.1974.3 o Firast,uu a 5WL.5461 .1 5BL.10359.1 ' 5BL.514.1 ' 5WL.1970.7 I 5BF.130.1 - ;/,, 5BL.4832.26 i 5WL.2247.11 „ :4=1 . • y 5WL.1966.11 5WL.1969.41 0 ' 5BF.72.1 1 j i o . . 5WL.1317.11 • Boulder 5BF.72.2 1 15WL.1966.8 1 tataye't`e'T ` - 5WL.1317 11 7 `. nur 5w1.1966.1 1 5BF.72.3 N.��Supe / `•.� / 15BF.130.1 / 5AM.457.2 a ... Hri 1, .,,,.7 " 5AM.472.1 36 nn onnnie I r \ a , „ 5AM.1291 .3 I : / i 1 _ iis i I . Denver 70 I III 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 I...ml i.... ,—I Miles North N \ Historic Preservation 3.15.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor Site# J Address Name I-25 Highway Corridor 5LR. 1917 4320 E. County Rd. 58 Bee Farm 5LR.8932.1 T8N/R68W, SW1/4 Sec. 15 Larimer County Ditch 5LR.11396 1320 Northeast Frontage Road Einarsen Farm 5LR.863.2 T7N/R68W, NE%Sec.4 Larimer and Weld Canal 5LR.1731.2 T7N/R68W, EC Sec. 9 Colorado& Southern Railroad 5LR.11409.1 T7N/R68W, SE%Sec. 16 Cache La Poudre Reservoir Inlet 5LR.11391 4434 E. County Road 40 Gallatin Residence 5LR.1327.6 T7N/R68W, SW%Sec. 27 Colorado&Southern Railroad 5LR.2160.1 T7N/R68W, SY2 Sec. 34 Boxelder Ditch 5LR.8930.1 T6N/R68W, N1/2 Sec. 27 Louden Ditch 5LR.1815.2 T5N/R68W, SE%Sec. 3 Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch 5LR.503.2 T5N/R68W, S1/2 Sec. 10 Loveland and Greeley Canal 5LR.8928.2 T5N/R68W, NW%Sec. 15 Farmers' Ditch(Farmers Irrigation Ditch) 5LR.8928.1 T5N/R68W, NY Sec. 14-15 Farmers' Ditch 5LR.1815.3 T5N/R68W, SE%Sec. 11 Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch 5LR.11209 5464 E. Highway 34 Schmer Farm 5LR.11210 4856 E. Highway 34 McDonough Farm • 5LR.850.1 T5N/R68W, C Sec. 15 Great Western Railway 5LR.11408 Zimmerman Grain Elevators 5LR.11382 640 Southeast Frontage Road Hatch Farm 5LR.8927.1 T5N/R68W, NV2 Sec. 22 Hillsboro Ditch 5LR.11242 a 5331 SH 402 Mountain View Farm 5WL.5204 3807 CR 48 Bashor Barn 5WL.5203 3766 CR 48 Bein Farm 5WL.3149.1 T4N/R68W, N1/2 Sec. 10 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence 5WL.864 T4N/68W, WC Sec. 11 Great Western Railway Buda Siding 5WL.841.11 T4N/R68W, EC Sec. 10 Great Western Railway 5WL.2985a E. 1-25 Frontage Road at Little Thompson Little Thompson River Bridge No. River C-17-BN 5WL.5198 17820 E. 1-25 Frontage Road Olson Farm 5WL.1978 3865 Highway 66 Rademacher/Hilgers Residence 5WL.841.9 T3N/R68W, EC Sec. 10 Great Western Railway 5WL.1975.1 T2N/R68W, NW%Sec. 2 Last Chance Ditch 5WL.1974.1 T2N/R68W, SW%Sec. 3 Rural Ditch 5WL.3146.1 T2N/R68W, NW%Sec. 14 Flume Ditch 5WL.1970.1 T2N/R68W, SE%Sec. 27 Lower Boulder Ditch 5WL.1966.1 T1N/R68W,SE%Sec.22 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF.72.1 T1N/R68W, NW%Sec. 23 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF.72.2 T1N/R68W, SW%Sec. 23 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF.72.3 T1N/R68W, NE%Sec. 34 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5BF.76.2 T1S/R68W, NE'/,Sec. 3 Bull Canal 5AM.457.3 T1S/R68W, NE%Sec. 3 Bull Canal • Historic Preservation 3.15-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor (cont'd) Site# Address Name 5AM.457.8 T1S/R68W, NE%Sec. 15 Bull Canal 5AM.457.2 T1S/R68W, N1/2 Sec. 22 Bull Canal 5AM.457.4 T1S/R68W, NW%Sec. 27 Bull Canal 5AM.1291.3 T2S/R68W, N1/2 Sec. 10 Farmers Highline Canal/Nivers Canal 5WL.322a 955 39th Avenue, Greeley White—Plumb Farm 5AM.2074 Southeast corner I-25 and 112th Avenue North Glenn Second Filing 5AM.2073 Northeast corner 1-25 and 104th Avenue North Glenn First Filing Commuter Rail Corridor 5LR.1731.1 Larimer/Boulder County line north to Cherry Colorado Central, Colorado& Street in Fort Collins(eclipses 5LR1731.4, Southern/Burlington Northern & 5LR1731.7, and 5LR9888.1) Santa Fe Railroad 5LR.11330b 128 Prospect St., Fort Collins Public Service Company of Colorado—Fort Collins Substation 5LR.10819.2 T7N/R69W, N% Sec. 26 Larimer County Canal No.2 5LR.10681.1 T6N/R69W, NE%Sec. 2 New Mercer Ditch 5LR.8930.2 T6N/R69W, SW%Sec. 26 Louden Ditch 5LR.850.5 Great Western Railroad 5LR.488a 405-409 Railroad Ave., Loveland Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot 5LR.503.4 T5N/R69W, SW%Sec. 13 Loveland &Greeley Canal 5LR.1729.2 T5N/R69W, SE'/,Sec. 23 Big Thompson Ditch 5LR.1731.11 T5N/R69W, NWY Sec. 24 Colorado Central/Colorado& Southern/Burlington Northern & Santa Fe, Business Spur 5LR.8928.7 T5N/R69W, NW%Sec. 24 Farmers' Ditch 5LR.12552 205-207 S 1st St., Berthoud Ludlow Brothers Property 5LR.1710.1 T4N/R69W, SE%Sec. 2 Handy Ditch 5BL.400.3 Larimer/Boulder County line south to Colorado Central/Colorado& Longmont Southern Railroad/BN&SFRR 5BL.3449.2 T3N/R69W, SE'/,Sec. 11 Supply Ditch 5BL.3114.28 T3N/R69W, SE%Sec. 11 Highland Ditch 5BL.3113.67 T3N/R69W, NE%Sec. 27 Rough & Ready Ditch 5BL.4832.28 T3N/R69W, NE%Sec. 34 Oligarchy Ditch 5BL.9163 846 Atwood St. Longmont Kitely House 5BL.10636b 122 8th Ave., Longmont Boggs Residence 5BL.1245 103 Main Street, Longmont Old City Electric Building 5BL.1244 100 Main Street, Longmont Colorado &Southern/BNSF Depot 5BL.514.1 T2N/R69W, S1/2 Sec.2 Great Western Railway 5BL.513 11939 to 11801 Sugarmill Road, Longmont Great Western Sugar Plant 5BL.7606 1020 Sugar Mill Road Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds 5BL.4832.26 T2N/R69W, N1/2 Sec. 12 Oligarchy Ditch 5WL.5278 545 SH 119 William H. Dickens Farm 5WL.2877.2 T2N/R68W, NW1/4 Sec. 7 Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/Coffin Spring Gulch Ditch 5WL.712a T2N/R68W, NE1/4 Sec. 7 Sandstone Ranch 5WL.5461.1 T2N/R68W, NW1/4 Sec.27 Boulder and Weld County Ditch • 5WL.5263 7523 WCR 7 Hingley Farm 5WL.6564 2877 WCR 18, Longmont Jillson Farm Historic Preservation 3.15-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.15-1 NRHP Listeda or Eligible Historical Resources and Linear Historical Resource Segments Within the APE Tabulated from North to South by Corridor (coned) Site # Address Name 5WL.1970.7 T2N/R68W, W1/2 Sec. 27 Lower Boulder Ditch 5WL.2247.11 T1N/R68W, SW 1/4 Sec. 10 Community Ditch 5WL.1974.3 2N,R68W,SW%Sec.15 Rural Ditch 5WL.1966.11 T1N/R68W, S1/2 Sec. 14 Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5WL.1317.11 T1N/R68W, NW1/4 Sec. 24 UPRR—Dent Branch 5WL.1969.41 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPRR—Denver& Boulder Valley Branch 5WL.1966.8 T1 N/R68W, NW 1/4 Sec. 25 Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch 5WL.1969.1 T1 N/R68W, SE%Sec. 15 Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch 5BF.130.1 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPRR—Denver& Boulder Valley Branch 5AM.472.1 UPRR Segment within Adams County UPRR—Dent Branch 5LR.530a 228 Museum Avenue, Berthoud Bimson Blacksmith Shop/Little Thompson Valley Pioneer Museum US 85 Corridor Queue Jumps 5WL.5296 3611 Idaho Street, Evans Flagstone Residence—Goetzel • 5WL.568a 13412 US 85 Fort Vasquez a Resources listed on the NRHP. SHPO concurrence pending. Commuter Rail Corridor The commuter rail corridor extends along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks from Fort Collins to Longmont. For Package A this includes a double-tracked commuter rail line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track. From Longmont, a new double-tracked commuter rail line connects this point to the North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. The new alignment trends eastward along SH 119 until WCR 7, and then continues on the west side of WCR 7 in a southward direction for about seven miles until it intersects with the existing abandoned UPRR tracks near Erie. For the Preferred Alternative the rail line will be largely single-track with passing tracks in four locations: ► Beginning at 6th Street in Loveland, continuing north to 0.04 mile south of West 57th Street in Loveland. (Length = 3.7 miles) ► Beginning 0.3 mile south of East CR 6c in Berthoud, continuing north to 0.4 mile north of WCR 14. (Length = 4.5 miles) ► Beginning in Longmont 0.05 mile west of Martin Street, continuing north along existing BNSF corridor to 19th Avenue. (Length = 2.3 miles) ► Beginning 0.6 mile west of 1-25, continuing north along existing UPRR to 0.3 mile south of CR 20. (Length = 5.2 miles) Additionally, a maintenance road has been included in the Preferred Alternative which would • run parallel to the commuter rail line in areas where no other roadway access is available. Historic Preservation 3.15-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Intensive surveys were conducted of the historical resources within the APE. A total of 100 resources were surveyed or re-evaluated in this corridor, of which 35 have been determined eligible for the NRHP. These include two former power plants, two railroad depots, one sugar factory, one former blacksmith shop, one former ranch, one business, three farms, three residences, four railroads, and seventeen ditches. These historic properties are listed in Table 3.15-1 Queue Jumps Along US 34 and US 85 The queue jump improvements occur along two highways—US 85 from Platteville through Evans associated with the commuter bus and US 34 from State Highway (SH) 257 to US 85 for the bus rapid transit. A queue jump consists of a modification to an existing signal light to allow buses to proceed through an intersection ahead of regular traffic on a separately timed green light. A short right-turn/bus-only lane is striped onto the existing outside lane of the highway to facilitate this bus movement. Surveys were conducted of the properties within the APE. A total of seven historical resources were surveyed or re-evaluated in these corridors, two of which are already listed on the NRHP. These historic properties are also listed in Table 3.15-1. Stations and Maintenance Facilities This project also includes potential sites for the locations of stations and maintenance facilities. The specific boundaries of these stations and maintenance facilities were provided. Most of • the stations are on vacant land and no buildings would be affected. In cases where there are buildings older than 40 years on or adjacent to the station site, the historical buildings were surveyed and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. A total of six historical resources were surveyed on or adjacent to the station locations, two of which have been determined NRHP-eligible. There were no structures on any of the proposed maintenance facility sites. These historic properties are listed in Table 3.15-1. 3.15.1.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES North 1-25 Corridor This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4. Where right-of-entry was granted, an intensive pedestrian survey was conducted for all parcels within the APE. The North 1-25 corridor surveys resulted in the recordation of 26 archaeological resources, including 22 isolated finds (IFs) and four sites. None of the isolated finds are eligible for the NRHP. The four sites identified as requiring additional data to assess their NRHP eligibility are listed in Table 3.15-2. Table 3.15-2 Archaeological Resources Identified as Needing Data within the North I-25 APE Listed from North to South Site# Description Evaluation 5LR11435 Site (M)—Lithic Scatter and Trash Scatter Need Data 5LR11436 Site (P)—Open Lithic Scatter Need Data • 5WL5320 Site (P)—Open Lithic Scatter Need Data 5AM1928 Site (P)—Open Lithic Scatter Need Data M. Multi-component P...Prehistoric Historic Preservation 3.15.9 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Two of these archaeological sites—site 5WL.5320 under all alternatives, and site 5AM.1928 under Package B and the Preferred Alternative—could be subject to direct impacts due to their proximity to the construction zones defined for each of the build packages. However, installation of retaining walls has been employed to avoid any impacts to these sites. All untested or"Needs Data" sites have been avoided, and therefore no further Section 106 actions are necessary. Commuter Rail Corridor Intensive pedestrian surveys of the length of the BNSF railroad track were conducted within the current right-of-way from Fort Collins to Longmont. From Longmont to FasTracks North Metro, an intensive pedestrian survey was conducted within the APE (300-foot-wide corridor) wherever right-of-entry was granted. No archaeological resources eligible for the NRHP were identified during surveys conducted within the rail corridor. Queue Jumps Along US 85 and US 34 Where right-of-entry, was granted a pedestrian survey was conducted within the APE. Surveys of the properties within the APE yielded no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. All of the proposed impact areas are heavily disturbed by the current highway right-of-way. Station Site Alternatives for Commuter Bus, Commuter Rail, Express Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Where right-of-entry was granted, the station site alternatives for commuter bus, rail, and BRT • were subjected to intensive pedestrian surveys. No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified. Operation and Maintenance Facilities No right-of-entry was granted for proposed locations of operation and maintenance facilities. No archaeological surveys were conducted. Results of Archaeological Resource Surveys From all the archaeological resources that were surveyed for this project or that had previously been surveyed, only four have been determined to have potential to yield information important to prehistory. However, further subsurface testing is needed in order to evaluate the information contained by these sites and to make definitive evaluations of NRHP-eligibility. Test excavations at the sites will not be conducted under the auspices of this project since there will be no direct effects to any of these localities. Lands within the APE for which right-of- entry was not granted will be surveyed for archaeological resources at the time of final design and prior to construction. 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences Cultural resource impacts were assessed for each of the project alternatives. The range of impacts may be direct or indirect and short-term or long-term. Direct impacts include the removal or modification of historic properties. Indirect impacts result from the project but are generally further removed in distance or may affect the setting for a historic property. Indirect • impacts include visual, auditory, and atmospheric changes in the vicinity of an historic property Historic Preservation 3.15-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. that affect the qualities that make the property or resource historic. For historic resources, most impacts would be long-term, but there can also be temporary impacts associated with construction of the transportation improvements. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has developed regulations (36 CFR 800)to assist federal agencies in evaluating and mitigating the impacts of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties on or eligible for the NRHP are affected when the characteristics of a historic property are altered. The categories of impacts to historic resources are: No Historic Properties Affected, No Adverse Effect and Adverse Effect as defined in 36 CFR 800.5. As part of the process, the SHPO and consulting parties reviewed the Section 106 determinations of eligibility and effects made by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For the North 1-25 EIS, review of the effects determinations is being done as a part of this EIS. If the Finding of Effect is that historic properties are adversely affected, then a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be prepared. The MOA would set forth measures to mitigate the adverse effects and would be agreed upon by the project sponsor (FHWA, FTA, CDOT), SHPO and ACHP. Mitigation actions may include such measures as detailed archival recordation of adversely affected historic properties or development of historic interpretive signage. 3.15.2.1 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES This section describes the consequences of the No-Action Alternative and Packages A, B and • the Preferred Alternative with regard to historic properties (NRHP-eligible or listed historical and archaeological sites). Throughout the following discussion, figures are only provided in cases when there are direct impacts to a resource from an alternative or in order to provide a more complete understanding of the proposed alternative as it relates to the resource. This discussion provides a basis for comparison of the alternatives. Mitigation measures to address adverse impacts of the alternatives on this resource are discussed in Section 3.15.3. All of the build options would entail short-term effects associated with construction of either package. Short term effects include dust from construction, noise and vibration associated with the construction, increases in roadway congestion and changes in the way people commute around the area. 3.15.2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would generally not affect historic properties. There would still be increasing traffic and congestion in this corridor. The present trend of conversion of many of the remaining historical farmsteads into residential, industrial and commercial development would also continue. • Historic Preservation 3.1511 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.15.2.3 PACKAGES A, B,AND THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY COMPONENTS Direct and indirect effects to eligible historic properties, including supporting segments of NRHP-eligible linear resources, related to each highway component are described in this section. Some linear resources would be affected by both highway and transit components. In these cases, direct and indirect effects of both highway and transit components are described in this section to facilitate presentation of the effects on the resource as a whole. SH1ToSH14 5LR.1917 (Bee Farm) Resource Description: This property is located on the east side of 1-25, approximately two miles south of Wellington. The Bee Farm is significant for its long association with the development of agriculture in Larimer County and the high plains of Colorado and for its important role in early pioneer settlement of the Boxelder valley. It is also significant for its architecture and construction techniques which represent those used by early farmers with limited resources and materials. It contains a collection of farm structures in their original historic context representing over a century of agriculture. Eligibility Determination: The Bee Farm was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on November 25, 2002. It was listed as significant under Criteria A and C. It was designated a Colorado Centennial Farm in 1994. Effects Determination — Package A: Under Package A all transportation improvements • would take place within the existing right-of-way adjacent to the Bee Farm resulting in no direct impacts to the Bee Farm. Indirect impacts would be a temporary increase in dust and noise during construction. Package A improvements would not diminish the agricultural or architectural qualities for which the property has been listed on the NRHP. Therefore, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bee Farm. Effects Determination — Package B: Under Package B all transportation improvements and resulting direct and indirect impacts would be similar to Package A. Package B improvements would not diminish the agricultural or architectural qualities for which the property has been listed on the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bee Farm. Effects Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative all transportation improvements would take place within the existing right-of-way adjacent to the Bee Farm resulting in no direct impacts to the Bee Farm. Indirect impacts would be a temporary increase in dust and noise during construction. The Preferred Alternative improvements would not diminish the agricultural or architectural qualities for which the property has been listed on the NRHP. Therefore, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bee Farm. • Historic Preservation 3.15-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.8932.1 (Larimer County Ditch) Resource Description: The Larimer County Ditch crosses 1-25 approximately 900 feet north of Larimer County Road (CR) 56, south of the town of Wellington. The open ditch crosses underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road inside two concrete culverts. The earthen ditch segment is approximately 20 feet wide with grassy levees, and traverses rural terrain. Eligibility Determination: In 2001 the Larimer County Ditch (5LR.8932) was determined to be eligible for NRHP. Segment 5LR.8932.1 does not support the eligibility of the greater ditch resource due to past modifications to its structure at the culvert crossings underneath 1-25 and the existing east frontage road. Effects Determination — Package A: Package A improvements include a wider frontage road along the existing alignment parallel to the southbound 1-25 mainline, requiring a 38-foot- long culvert extension to the west side of the existing 35-foot-long culvert. A new 40-foot-wide frontage road would be built parallel to the east side of the northbound 1-25 mainline, requiring a new concrete box culvert (CBC) crossing of the ditch at that location. The new culvert would place 45 feet of open ditch within a concrete culvert. The length of open ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would total 83 feet. There would be no mainline 1-25 improvements in this area (see Figure 3.15-3). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of 1-25 and the frontage road and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore has determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Ditch. • Effects Determination — Package B: Package B improvements include the same impacts as Package A. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 and frontage road and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA AND CDOT therefore has determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Ditch (see Figure 3.15-3). Effects Determination — Preferred Alternative: Preferred Alternative improvements include a wider frontage road along the west side of the existing alignment parallel to the southbound 1-25 mainline and a new 40-foot-wide frontage road parallel to the east side of the northbound 1-25 mainline. The Preferred Alternative also includes one new travel lane and a buffer separated TEL in each direction. The overall footprint for improvements has been reduced from Packages A and B as a result of moving the additional highway lanes to the center median as opposed to outside the existing highway footprint. The resulting impact to this resource is the addition of a 25-foot-long culvert extension to the west side and a 30-foot-long culvert extension on the east side of the existing 35-foot-long culvert under 1-25. The length of open ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would total 55 feet (see Figure 3.15-4). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of 1-25 and the frontage road and Preferred Alternative improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore has determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Ditch. • Historic Preservation 3.15-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-3 5LR.8932.1 (Larirner County Ditch) — Packages A and B III , .. LEGEND • ; Historical Resources Packages A & B Resource Impact . .�. Packages A & B ROW Boundary t , 5LR.8932.1 Property Boundary Packages EOP F. Bridge /Culvert I Roadway Features E.0 Retaining Wall ] Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails - - _- _ -- . H ph, .. ' Existing 125 culvert 1, " will remain in place. - *y.�- New 38-foot-long culvert _ • ` .- extension over West Frontage Road - . ad!, r_ ci: wit 0• ` r . r A e. li ili ,* 1 = 1 i It i> . l - 1 ! i \ 1 ftøPfew45400t-longculvert ! = ' ' extension over East Frontage Road fa. imi' op i ., vrj r. ` NB ' i J[3; � I � Al Location Map • Iii+ F A r i I, o 200 Feet ; ' Ill r �� Feet North _Ls] Historic Preservation 3.15.14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation III Figure 3.15-4 LR.8932.1 (Larimer County Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND Historical Resources Preferred Artemative Resource Impact I I Preferred .Alternative ROW Boundary 5LR 8932 1 Resource Boundary 1 Prelerrrd Alternalrec Fq Bridge ;CuNert 1 EOP PResid ay Features S. Retanmp wag iParcrrl Borrnd,an,a, `_,A Guardraik _ ' f Si Fxisting 1-?5 culvert iiiilli , • will remain in place r New 25 foot long culvert extension over West Frontage Road 1 I I i 1)- 1/0: 1:::: 14 '. il a 0 ii. 4•Mta- t• -I--k.- ' .. - . F 1l - .fill HI '- _ New 30-toot-long culvert t `' ‘ extension over East Frontage Road i `, I _ t ' - '1 l 1 i.:1;11--r—C._ ,) \ 1 1 } I li 1 ''.. li N1 Location Map S 1 A I ; I ' r 4 I VN 0 200 Feet North 4 • Historic Preservation 3.15-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 5LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm) Resource Description: The historic Einarsen Farm (5LR.11396) is located in the project APE on the east side of 1-25 at 1320 Northeast Frontage Road. The farm, which was established in 1890, contains an intact barn and hipped roof cottage-style farmhouse. Eligibility Determination: Based on its association with 19th century Larimer County agriculture and the good integrity of the farm structures built during the period of significance (1880s-1940s), this farm has been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Effect Determination — Package A: In this location, the existing configuration of two general purpose lanes in each direction would be maintained, although the northbound and southbound roadways and the east frontage road would be widened to improve shoulders. Under Package A, a narrow sliver of land extending north from East Vine Drive would be permanently incorporated into the transportation right-of-way. This acquired right-of-way would allow construction of wider roadway shoulders and would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historic farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road. This strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection tapering down to the northernmost point near the ranch access road. The impacted area is along the edge of a cultivated field and contains 1.76 acres and constitutes less than 1 percent of the total area of the 220 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are near the proposed improvements (see Figure 3.15-5). The historical farm setting was permanently altered in the 1960s by initial construction of 1-25 • and introduction of the highway and associated traffic noise. Currently, the farmhouse is located 80 feet from the east edge of the existing frontage road. With the Package A improvements, the farmhouse would be 70 feet away from the east edge of the frontage road. Noise levels associated with increased Package A traffic levels on 1-25 and frontage road would result in a two decibel increase over existing conditions. This noise increase is barely perceptible. The changes to the local terrain are minimal and there are no highway features introduced by the proposed improvements that would indirectly affect the historic farm or visual context of the farm. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. A temporary construction easement could be necessary along the western edge of the property for haul roads, construction access, and staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this use of the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, and would not permanently affect the atmosphere of the farm setting. Thus indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities would occur, but would not be expected to significantly diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm, farm structures and farmhouse NRHP- eligible. Due to the small amount of farmland directly impacted, its proximity to the existing non- historic frontage road, and the fact that no historic farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA, FTA and CD0T have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect • to the Einarsen Farm. Historic Preservation 3.15-16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Effect Determination — Package B: Direct impacts to this historical farm under Package B are very similar in nature and extent to those anticipated under Package A. A slightly shorter segment of the east frontage road would be realigned and widened. The acquired right-of-way to allow construction of wider roadway shoulders would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historical farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road. The impacted strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection tapering to 0 feet wide at the northernmost point. The impacted 1.76 acres are located along the edge of a cultivated field and constitutes less than 1 percent of the total area of the 220 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are near the proposed improvements (see Figure 3.15-5). Noise levels associated with increased traffic levels on 1-25 would result in a three decibel increase over existing conditions. While one decibel louder than noise expected with Package A, this increase is still in the barely perceptible range. The changes to the local terrain are minimal and there are no highway features introduced by the proposed improvements that would indirectly affect the visual context of the farm. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm, farm structures and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. Indirect effects due to temporary construction activities would be the same as for Package A. Due to the small amount of farmland impacted, its proximity to the existing non-historic • frontage road, and the fact that no historical farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative would add one general purpose lane and one TEL in each direction. A narrow sliver of land extending along and north from East Vine Drive would be permanently incorporated into the transportation right-of-way to accommodate these improvements and construct wider shoulders along the eastern frontage road. This acquired right-of-way would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historic farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road and at the intersection with East Vine Drive. The impacted area is along the edge of a cultivated field and contains 1.90 acres and constitutes less than 1 percent of the total area of the 220 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are near the proposed improvements (see Figure 3.15-6). With the Preferred Alternative improvements, the farmhouse would be 70 feet away from the east edge of the frontage road as opposed to the 80 feet away it currently sits. Noise levels associated with increased traffic levels on 1-25 and the frontage road would result in a two-decibel increase over existing conditions. This noise increase is barely perceptible. The changes to the local terrain are minimal and there are no highway features introduced by the proposed improvements that would indirectly affect the historic farm or visual context of the farm. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. • Historic Preservation 3.15-17 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • A temporary construction easement could be necessary along the western edge of the property for haul roads, construction access, and staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this use of the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, and would not permanently affect the atmosphere of the farm setting. Thus indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities would occur, but would not be expected to significantly diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm, farm structures and farmhouse NRHP- eligible. Due to the small amount of farmland impacted, its proximity to the existing non-historic frontage road, and the fact that no historical farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. • • Historic Preservation 3.15.18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-5 5LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm) — Packages A and B LEGEND '•- Historical Resources I f Packages A & B Resource Impact I 'V M Packages A & B ROW Boundary - ' I 'T SLR. 11396 Property Boundary ,. Packages EOP H Bridge Guardrails I ' H r Roadway Features III-41 Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries As Guardrailsra-iirdriLLIIIIII issilbs. t d .1fitia. 1 r. 1FS 1 tt HI 11 in Pic' p 1 A itl!ift 1 .6 4% rrit.P.; ,, 2' ; fril ritti:N.: •11/4, 'Iv) ! . . iLitr: .:111[4_,'.. .ii! •.111 el) r...:1._.:_.-..- .:- -..-_-,j, no, i ; .. ., -. . . 71 insE. I PI Li 4 W . , 3, i i ,.. ....-fr" iit P . , _ , , ti rrurrr: lir; i 1 r_ -_ . iis. :, , , - - ,-, - -- .-T . --", . I ill 1 C. mar'L,..�. tPrittaL. m ' lip IP' ir i I j i'r _ T , fi1 ' i . C � SKI , Xill L . .. r ,r I �. . ' R Or rititt g. • • 1. . 1 ri711gtriritekli 1 ' - - _ . • .i - \ ' fr. vr .1 jj. -:'' , it: • taajp, sit '13 , , . d - a • i 't I I e., ,,,-. . . — - rx al c t . , . . . IIII ...At pirrier • , pi 11' 1 1 , if ii,t, it . , tier. LI' , I * . arra lis lif . * 10, ' '/ Ca: 4 . I . : 1 till III - & , . C` " ,44� � �. �``-i; iii, Area = 76.694 Sq. Ft d . • .� 1 �a C Acres = 1.76 it 1 4 ir hot ) Altpatilarr . a 1 4.-. :‘,, sl ‘.. .-- g . - : .: ..; .1.1 illir i I i L' * Fr- \ */JRItY1t? �f^ il A -\\. [ -ig— , / �r. {=�- - i- 4.1 -I riedraw)4rJ E VINE DR •�.�e �, // -I v.f Nom , I % IAi I - I 1 I, d Location Map\ I i - -r,i -- , I 0 400 17N16.--sI Feet 0 III North II Historic Preservation 3.15-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-6 LR.11396 (Einarsen Farm) — Preferred Alternative 0 3ar 11 • LEGEND ; I I i. Historical Resources `~ I II i Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ,' f Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary j I SLR 11396 Property Boundary I _ i , Preferred Allornanvo - - z e , EOP �� Bodge Guardrails 4 I ! • _-.4-t • I - Roadway Fnalures — Retaining FUel r' f. NfIlil. HI t Pares Bcwnda'R•s 4 Guardrails I I �i(retat" tr - y ' �� f r -1 r� D'''rt ri-- rrrikri nit I 11711,.,- 11011Foitiit Li: virvirrivi Tn. kitri‘ at.--i i jiiiiiio pm i . (0./.. .....„,_ rt. , a4... 521MY-114 lir 1 I NIII in ',: 712 ,r- 1 , (..... i ' Ili r '1Zr. TPItar - W--, k Mg .` ;1 ter- .•a► - , ,. 0 . LIP Ir*Il_Ar ' NB -- a- i :. ,r- _ire . . r • t„....., Ent „„,,,,,,it_ if, ,thiminit . lir I I " I ! t I, . lll i � i atianfir. :ijw!IrjaiJ ► ; ,I� III tit irPit I it :r �`�-� o-_ -iv.% I.._ prci _ a 251 I it ift ' "4-rar._ - • A41 4111 I' 1� j �T - ir • ,r / � '�-' . I Area = ],6fi0 Sq Ft �► al �' acres . 1.90 ep WIM i a I „ 411, sp _ ),,i istia ii / il am k __�_' i .! Vii`1,://4,�_r • .4. .f.� �, . • . i 7.116 I II Ilk N,' c • t �E�=WINE=e : -- - - _ -_ _ —.---- — II , , _ ip I., r Ir t, i Location Map ` r1 Ii ii• it VN ' I I 0 400 ,� ia1 I Feet North I r I I it ' • Historic Preservation 3.15-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld Canal) Resource Description: This segment of the Larimer and Weld Canal generally runs perpendicular to 1-25 and crosses both the highway and the frontage road. The canal was originally built between 1878 and 1881. The canal is approximately 30 feet in width. The portion of the canal that crosses under the highway was altered when the highway was constructed in the 1960s. The entire canal is approximately 45 miles long. The segment in the project APE (5LR.863.2) is 3,782 feet long. The levees along both banks of the canal are grassy and in many areas lined with coarse stone riprap. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire canal is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer and Weld Counties. The segment (5LR.863.2)within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: Currently, 3 bridges span the canal, carrying multiple lanes of northbound and southbound 1-25, and the east frontage road. Each of these roadways would be widened to add wider shoulders and new acceleration and deceleration lanes associated with the Mountain Vista Drive interchange ramps. To accommodate the proposed improvements under Package A, the existing northbound 48-foot-long, rolled I-beam composite bridge improvements over the canal would be widened by 25 feet from its current 38-foot-width. The existing southbound bridge is identical to the northbound bridge and would be widened by 20 feet. The existing east frontage road bridge is a 48-foot-long, • 24-foot-wide concrete slab and girder bridge over the canal. It would be widened by 12 feet. All highway and frontage road widening would be supported on top of the new bridge structures. New bridge piers and abutments used to support the widened bridge deck would be placed outside the historic boundary of the canal and would therefore not result in direct impacts (see Figure 3.15-7). The widened bridges would increase the amount of open canal located underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to increased bridge deck area would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the canal, however; this would not alter the qualities that render this ditch segment NRHP-eligible. Installation of the new bridge piers and deck structures would likely require a temporary use within the boundary of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The canal would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. No direct impacts to the resource would occur as a result of these improvements. Indirect effects to the canal would not diminish the function, alignment, attributes, or setting that render the canal NRHP-eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer and Weld Canal. Effect Determination — Package B: Impacts are identical to Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would also result in no adverse effect to the Larimer • and Weld Canal (see Figure 3.15-7). Historic Preservation 3.15-21 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-7 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld Canal) — Packages A and B III LEGEND I Historical Resources - -- —_. - . . i Packages A & B Resource Impact I I Packages A & B ROW Boundary II j 5LR 863.2 Property Boundary tr Ij Packages EOP . Bridge / Culvert 2 rJ ir J Roadway Features —U Retaining Mil I Parcel Boundaries L, Guardrails 1 . li II Existing 1-25 bridge would be extended to the west 20 feet and to the east 25 feet creating a wider span y -; over the canal without directly I = Ni: impacting the existing historic ; " resource The east frontage road - Ii ' , would similarly be widened 12 feet to :( i ''- the east without impacting the canal • "r •; I , , a � � - - t � . i: _ w ... all• 'II ! . f i 4 •I'S 4 - *Viiil/ / ://11 • 1 . 4 I • 4. --_ • 'lb.• ./ •i 1 , hi,. 41No Areas Directl Im cted I . i : . 44 ' I Ili 4 II / I / •. 4 1 e , . r • I i x - . -- ---- I n 11 •I L f/ t r' - - location Map . :5\ i I ; ' — c Vii\l0 200 i/� i le FeetL,..• ; . North •a • 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-22 Final EIS NORTH I2.5 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Impacts are identical to Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would also result in no adverse effect to the Larimer and Weld Canal (see Figure 3.15-8). 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) Resource Description: Multiple segments of the Colorado & Southern (C&S) Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties are located within the APE of the potential highway package improvements. Several different site numbers have been assigned to this rail line, but they all refer to the same overall resource (see Figure 3.15-9). The northernmost railroad segment affected by highway improvements is segment 5LR.1731.2, an 836-foot-long segment of the historic C&S Black Hollow Branch that runs eastward from Black Hollow Junction, which is located northeast of the Downtown Fort Collins Airpark, to Black Hollow in Weld County. It was built in 1906 by the Colorado Railroad Company, a subsidiary of C&S and then absorbed by C&S in 1930. The C&S was dissolved in 1981 and the tracks taken over by Burlington Northern, which in 1995 became the BNSF. The total length of the C&S Black Hollow Branch is 9 miles. The 1-25 alignment crosses the C&S alignment just northwest of the SH 14 interchange. The bridges that carry 1-25 over the railroad were built during construction of 1-25 in the 1960s. The second affected segment (5LR.1327.6) is a 1,661-foot-long railroad segment originally built in 1882 as part of the Greeley, Salt Lake, & Pacific Railroad. In 1899, the rail line became part of the C&S. The segment is part of an approximately 13 mile-long link that extends • diagonally from Fort Collins to Greeley. 1-25 crosses this segment of the C&S alignment just south of the SH 14 interchange. The bridge that carries the highway over the railroad was built during construction of 1-25 in the 1960s. The third segment of the C&S line (5LR1731.11) in the APE is also known as the Colorado Central(CC)/C&S/BNSF Business Spur. The spur is a commercial access spur line running north from the mainline BNSF RR just south of West 1st Street in Loveland. This disused spur is 262 feet long, retains rail and ties, and includes a wooden trestle bridge (5LR.1731.11.mm6028) over the Farmers Irrigation Ditch (5LR8928.7). The bridge is in a deteriorated state. The Larimer County segment 5LR.1731.1 and the Boulder County segment 5BL.400.3 represent the southernmost Colorado Central/Colorado & Southern Railroad/Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad segments in the APE. Segment 5LR.1731.1 runs 7.8 miles south from the Larimer County line to South Pratt Parkway in Longmont. These segments were built in 1877 and have been in constant service for 130 years. The CC/C&S/BNSF runs 23.4 miles generally south from Cherry Street in Fort Collins to the Boulder County line. The entire CC/C&S/BNSF rail line in Boulder County is 33.8 miles long. Eligibility Determination: The entire C&S railroad (5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400) is eligible under NRHP Criterion A for its association with the development of railway transportation. Railway transportation was critically important to the settlement and economic development of Colorado. Segments 5LR.1731.2, 5LR.327.6 and 5LR.1731.1 of the railway retain integrity of the original location, design, and function, and collectively support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5LR1731.11 has been heavily modified and due to this loss of • integrity no longer supports the eligibility of the entire railroad. Historic Preservation 3.15-23 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-8 5LR.863.2 (Larimer and Weld Canal) — Preferred Alternative III . . LEGEND ilie IL 1 I Historical Resources 4 . -+ Preferred Alternative Resource Impact t Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary • 5LR.863.2 Resource Boundary I 141 Preferred Alternative N.. Bridge /Culvert 4 M EOP Roadway Features i — Retaining Wall I 4 C Parcel Boundaries S,s Guardrails r 4 , M E « y - - ill : Existing 1-25 bridge woul be I i w.. extended to the west 20 feet and to i the east 25 feet creating a wider span ' « - ' over the canal without directly 't impacting the existing historic resource. The east frontage road 4 4 y would similarly be widened 12 feet to the east without impacting the canal. ., • _ i i 0 - , , ! •. • ! 1 f - III ...., vatiiii Imp ......„, p._ . Ptif . -,b-r. titt* 1 21 lik 1 No Areas Directly Impacted 4 - i. ( / 1 - (—.7 � l it I 1 ; . '4. 1 , 't'4L ,r / 1 Location Map t : lr r , r � rr ri , ' _ • 1 0 200 4A. I 104`�Illltttttr Feet North y i _ r �'i ll Historic Preservation 3.15-24 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation0 . Figure 3.15-9 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, 5BL.400 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) Segments Intersecting Project APE LEGEND (4 /\/ Historic Railroads and Ditches Al Study Corridors '/v ••\ ` I85 /'\/ Highways 287 % • /\/ Arterial Roads 5LR.1731 .2 ..�. L J Regional Study Area \` ` F''rF »' 5LR.1327.6 \. City Boundaries ► LIT '. IIIIT a Cities & Towns in Project Area a • hp T141 /+. 257 _ >mnath a • evcrar,ce Lila' • 5LR.1731. 1 - ' 287 ' tare,.., \ 392 lc.1 li Greeley • 34l' 1 2s3 _ I Loveland r '�itY. « 34 Eva.,. La$a'ie . Campion JdlrIsi(W I �. aern . I v ?Mike; 85 , Glues, • i / � Mead �,/ Plattev,ltr 6 I JJI!( ' trnunt I 58L.400.3 ii I ! �_«> 0 1 oe5toneVcdmrs 0 \ Niv...! ortoa I //1 _ 1 (SI[ 7Z i/ o q la, v Fort l�vta �«n,,rHl I .e o i I e • = waeq Boulder 1 t,rawntr. '^'I t tfamine rt L t. -«i I i 7 .j \'• E7,. ' . yp.r .` 36 287 % 0 ! Ili,.:n to / \, � r- �_ �.\ '' '� i ,� .'---' i 11 is Deliver/•-arIV 1 « I / 0 2 4 6 8 10 +'"'-'', ja--si IIimeme-- Miles North 1 Cel I Historic Preservation 3.15-25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire C&S Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties. Impacts to segment 5LR.1731.2— Package A: I-25 is currently carried over this historic railroad by two parallel, 125-foot-long, 38-foot-wide welded girder composite bridges for the northbound and southbound traffic lanes. The existing bridges result in a combined 76 feet of overhead railroad coverage. The existing east and west frontage roads are provided with at- grade railroad crossings. Package A in this location consists of a transition area from three general purpose lanes in each direction on the south to two general purpose lanes in each direction on the north. The northbound 1-25 roadway would be widened to the east of the existing roadway edge, while the southbound roadway would be widened to the west of the existing roadway edge. Wider bridge structures would replace the existing bridges to accommodate the larger roadway template. These new bridges would each be 79 feet long and 63 feet wide, constructed as pre-stressed concrete girder type structures. Due to their wider dimensions, an additional 50 feet of railroad would be covered by the two new highway bridges. The frontage roads would remain in their current locations and would be maintained in their existing at-grade railroad crossing configurations (see Figure 3.15-10). The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed. The entire widened 1-25 roadway would continue to be carried over the historic railway on top of the new bridge structures. The new bridges would be supported by piers placed outside the historic rail • corridor boundary (railroad right-of-way) resulting in no direct impacts to the historic railway. Installation of the new bridge piers and deck structures would likely require a temporary construction easement on the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railway would remain operational and would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The widened bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck by 50 feet. This increased overhead cover due to a wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, this minor impact would not diminish the qualities that render this railway segment NRHP-eligible. No direct impacts would occur. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. • Historic Preservation 3.15-26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.15-10 5LR.1731.2 (Colorado & Southern Railroad, Black Hollow Branch) — Packages A and B LEGEND ' Historical Resources - ; Packages A & B Resource Impact Packages A & B ROW Boundary 5LR.1731.2 Property Boundary ' l k • Packages EOP H Bridge /Culvert _ . Roadway Features W.. Retaining NIaN . . CParcel Boundaries An, Guardrails # ii If . it r .A \ it * _ 1 Existing at-grade crossing Existing bridges _ . ,iri r• r ; . _-,—;•, --- Existing at-grade crossing . - � r 1 r r III .• . a _ftwr_ _It. ..4 ... .,. . .. -ii,iugT• _ 1 if II . unit ......-_ : . ,0.4. ... ,_ _ . • . . _ •_.•_ . •• _ . ... 4 .. I „low. ..v . ,. __„,.. _z_:.... . _ _ . ik i - iteir'nei-- Sr i r I N a 4.... .. . ix rr4 - t a r' �n„ =r- f . �.;-- No Areas Directly Impacted O . 1r 1 0 ; / r, 1 - n _ I I( • Y , t i '. 1 I ,y. . I li ' I l • , il•l I location Map' ' # PrI --- i ', 0 200 ® ' ' I Feet North r 0 . . ii Historic Preservation 3.15-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5LR.1731.2 — Package B: The changes associated with Package B at this location are similar in character to those associated with Package A. In the vicinity of the historic railroad, Package B consists of a transition area from two general purpose lanes plus a buffer-separated managed lane in each direction to a section containing only two general purpose lanes in each direction. The northbound roadway would be widened to the east of the existing roadway edge, while the southbound roadway would be widened to the west of the existing roadway edge. Wider northbound and southbound bridge structures would be required to accommodate the larger roadway template. These new bridges would each be 79 feet long and 63 feet wide, constructed as pre-stressed concrete girder type structures. The frontage roads would remain in their current locations and at-grade crossings would be maintained in their current configurations (see Figure 3.15-10). The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed. The entire widened 1-25 roadway would continue to be carried over the historic railway on top of the new bridge structures. The new bridges would be supported by piers placed outside the historic rail corridor boundary (railroad right-of-way) resulting in no direct impacts to the historic railway. The widened bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to a wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; but would not alter the property's historic function or alignment, nor diminish the character or attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Construction access across the railway property may be required for installation of new bridge piers. This temporary direct impact would not diminish qualities that render the railway NRHP- eligible. • The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5LR.1731.2— Preferred Alternative: The changes associated with the Preferred Alternative at this location consist of a transition area from three general purpose lanes plus a buffer-separated managed lane in each direction to a section containing only two general purpose lanes in each direction. The northbound roadway would be widened to the east of the existing roadway edge, while the southbound roadway would be widened to the west of the existing roadway edge. Wider northbound and southbound bridge structures would be required to accommodate the larger roadway template. These new bridges would each be 79 feet long and 63 feet wide, constructed as pre-stressed concrete girder type structures. The frontage roads would remain in their current locations and at-grade crossings would be maintained in their current configurations (see Figure 3.15-11). The widened bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to a wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, this minor impact would not diminish the qualities that render this railway segment NRHP-eligible. No direct impacts would occur. The proposed transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. • Historic Preservation 3.15-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportationIII . Figure 3.15-11 5LR.1731.2 (Colorado & Southern Railroad, Black Hollow Branch) — Preferred Alternative .... LEGEND 4 Historical Resources 4 Preferred Attemative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 4 5LR.1731 .2 Resource Boundary 4 Prefe rred Alternative El.. Bridge /CulvertEOP y i 1 Roadway Features fFU Retaining 1MaN -C Parcel Boundaries A,....jk Guardrails : 4:1 - - • r O G c 1 Existing crossing.- ' I at grade _ 1 , Existing bridges ,it $—�' _. _ , ..�< 4 II 1 Existing at grade crossing " ' ^.T _• ._. :' . L !? .\ L ri rlk. L T i r I I 4# ' ` 5 * ir'r 1.- p ir c i I , fr • t -1 , • 41 .r. - • No Areas Directly Impacted _--..4 I •\ ; . , elI t I [_ t _ y -. i . - t i M - N ( i rt- - ._ . , fig / A-rir , ' Location Mapes) -- ._& / III 1,-1-N. 1 1, I i y 0 200Feet North Ill I Historic Preservation 3.15-29 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to Segment 5LR.1327.6— Package A: Presently, 1-25 is bridged over the historic rail line via two 172-foot-long, 3-span welded girder and concrete bridges for northbound (B-17-BC) and southbound lanes (B-17-BD). The existing northbound bridge is 44 feet wide and the existing southbound bridge is 38 feet wide. Under Package A, the 1-25 template would be widened approximately 60 feet on the east side of the existing highway to provide space for the overall expansion of the highway footprint to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction. The expanded 1-25 section would require replacement of the old bridges with new, larger bridge structures to span the rail line. The southbound bridge (B-17-BD) would be demolished and replaced in approximately the same position. Bridge structure 8-17-BC would be demolished and the new northbound bridge would be constructed approximately 30 feet east of that location. The northbound bridge would be 208 feet long and 63 feet wide, and the southbound bridge would be 218 feet long and 63 feet wide. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor boundary. The frontage road would be widened approximately 12 feet to improve paved shoulder width. Where the frontage road crosses the railway, no changes to the road width or alignment are planned. Package A would result in no direct impacts to this resource (see Figure 3.15-12). The larger bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck by approximately 44 feet. This increased overhead cover would constitute an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; because the existing setting includes the modern highway and bridge spans, Package A improvements would not substantially impair the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Installation of the new bridge piers and decking structures would likely require a temporary • construction easement on a small portion of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railway would remain operational and would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and any affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. No direct impact to the resource would occur as a result of these improvements. Indirect effects to the railway would not substantially diminish the function, alignment, attributes, or setting that contribute to the historic integrity and render the canal NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5LR.1327.6— Package B: Under Package B, the 1-25 template would be widened nearly 100 feet to the east and approximately 12 feet to the west to accommodate an 8-lane highway template made up of two general purpose lanes and two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing bridges spanning the historic rail line would be replaced by new, longer bridge structures to carry 4-lanes in each direction. The northbound bridge would be 201 feet long, and the southbound bridge would be 183 feet long. Although the dimensions of the Package B bridge replacements and highway widening are larger, the effect to the railroad is the same as described under Package A. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor. No direct impacts would occur to the resource (see Figure 3.15-13). The larger bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck by approximately 80 feet. This increased overhead cover would constitute an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; because the existing setting includes the modern • highway and bridge spans, Package B improvements would not substantially impair the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Historic Preservation 3.15-30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation IIIFigure 3.15-12 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) — Package A �+�ra .air s e . r' Ir { • "tors!' I LEGEND \ \,.. ,ke . r•sHistorical Resources l - --� x Package A Resource Impact : - Package A ROW Boundary \\\\ T ` .... '5t R 1327.6 Property Boundary 'L` �Nt, .44:11,44lillit . Package A EOP H Bridge + CulvertRoadway Features �. Retaining wall , " , 'Parcel Boundaries As, Guardrails 1 4 1.1\ 1 .77..; • ` ' -. A --- tos1/44\- E4. 1 rep., ii,Nki , \I:4.. ` , 411. III . \ -k )11,:, No Areas Directly Impacted L tk Existing bridges would be • \I.replaced with new bridges ", . • I 1‘ 1'4 . et 4+ - 40 . . ,...C. ,..if i 1 \ : ‘ • ''' - - -- _ ! 1..._# 14 11 .'' , . . 0 . 1, F K i I s i , / * • / , • - " -' .• .a . _i i ! I• - 'N _, , ; _ . ._ Zi:Ir• Location Map ;, ,�. { 4 a--\P y V . 0 200 . . - I I Feet North 111 . Historic Preservation 315-31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-13 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) — Package B III LEGEND Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR 1327.6 Property Boundary „ - . 'l Package B EOP H Bridge , Culvert ,' SW Roadway Features a—a Retaining V iII r 1is jpN t C '' Parcel Boundaries �J Guardr,iiL•: w. , 1 \ • U. 1 _ o illitiliklit tbl? AO sae I t'1.::t\KI V ,ii�'. yd 1 i 4'I \ t \a r • , S Af ' :•.-"li ' \s:ckt it \‘‘ 1 \ � � t 4 ilit III _. _ a. .= , Existing bridges would be ..T:.-:replaced with new bridges \\ r R' R i IF , r No Areas Directly Impacted t \ $ s \ z \ 1 ?� I CI t iii h[ 4 r _ \ \\\\\ ` l . .." t. 11of rl-- i I i — 1 , _ . it . \ , t,. - t . _... t \ • f t �i� a ;Location Map iil, iiiima. . \1\0 200 i� I Feet North i ID Historic Preservation 3.15-32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Installation of the new bridge piers and decking structures would likely require temporary use of a small portion of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railway would remain operational and would be protected from all encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to Segment 5LR.1327.6— Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, the 1-25 template would be widened into the median and approximately 60 feet on the east side of the existing highway to provide space for the overall expansion of the highway footprint to accommodate three general purpose lanes and a TEL in each direction. The expanded 1-25 section would require replacement of the old bridges with new, larger bridge structures to span the rail line. The southbound bridge (B-17-BD) would be demolished and replaced with a wider bridge extending into the existing median. Bridge structure B-17-BC would be demolished and the new northbound bridge would be constructed adjacent to and east of that location. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor boundary. The frontage road would be widened approximately 12 feet to provide a paved shoulder. Where the frontage road crosses the railway, no changes to the road width or alignment are planned. The Preferred Alternative would result in no direct impacts to this resource (see Figure 3.15-14). • The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed. The entire widened 1-25 roadway would continue to be carried over the historic railway on top of the new bridge structures. The new bridges would be supported by piers placed outside the historic rail corridor boundary (railroad right-of-way) resulting in no direct impacts to the historic railway. The widened bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck by approximately 165 feet. This increased overhead cover due to a wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; but would not alter the property's historic function or alignment, nor diminish the character or attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Construction access across the railway property may be required for installation of new bridge piers. This temporary direct impact would not diminish qualities that render the railway NRHP-eligible. The proposed transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5LR.1731.1 — Package A: Commuter rail transit stations would be developed at six locations along this historic rail line in the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. These stations would include new station platforms of concrete flatwork at track level, American with Disabilities (ADA) compliant high-blocks (short raised platforms for wheelchair access to trains), various minor station amenities (trash cans, benches, etc), and pedestrian overpasses/underpasses (see Figure 3.15-15). • Historic Preservation 3.15-33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-14 5LR.1327.6 (Colorado & Southern Railroad) — Preferred Alternative III F - LEGEND 1 Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact * li -. Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary ' 5LR.1327.6 Resource Boundary Preferred Alternative ...NM Bridge /Culvert ,1 r I air EOP t Roadway Features M.. Retaining V1FaIl r \ Ir An% ti C Parcel Boundaries �s Guardrails # 4' • P \ it b dri , _ 1 M Y 3 \ W • tI \ i I . ailliKi. , .. .. '' ' I AI 1 ''' ‘ t 11 4i " 1 ,k\lit .--' • . No Areas Directly Impacted s / \ • �` ID Existing bridges would be V . VS replaced with new bridges --- . . 73-•\, 4-: .Q �. - it ,1 1 + 39- F. . .I. AAil } ,, . �' 1 ., ' r 1 . /. \ \ t ' • 4' tic, -- A 4, i - -totic,- , , is , \ el' %.*...,. i a_,.. it , h\' • J/ k Location Map Ili . \ in 0 200 ® ' I Feet North . III irk 1 Historic Preservation 3.15-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-15 Typical Commuter Rail Station Design and Cross Section i :J . K i Ill or _: _ 4:3 . _ .iitillaillilliLissiltle". . ill a If-Tans: ‘ • ,••• ��. .-+ -4. 0 I 1 19' 8 v11 5' 411 25' 51 411 91 O11 I [ > < > < > J > < > PLATFORM PLATFORM I I 1 I I I I I k , I I` I 1 r. ` �. 1 I t I _ I �' 1 1 I TRACKS TRACKS 50' i 50' 1 / i PARK-AND-RIDE / • Historic Preservation 3.15-35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The historic resource is comprised of the ballast, bed and track. In all of the station locations the existing rail line would remain in its current (historic) alignment, and thus no direct impacts would occur. Wooden and iron/steel pedestrian train crossing bridges were common elements of major railroad stations of the early Front Range railways. Pedestrian bridges and ADA components, building layout, and parking facilities proposed under Package A would, however, introduce a modern design element into the historic setting. Modern station infrastructure would be considered an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, it is not expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. The Package A commuter rail would be located east of the existing spur line and would not directly or indirectly affect the switching or track of the spur. There would be no change in the current configuration of the railroad spur or trestle bridge crossing due to commuter rail improvements in Package A. Impacts to segment 5LR.1731.1 — Preferred Alternative: Commuter rail transit stations would be developed at six locations along this historic rail line in the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Berthoud. These stations would include new station platforms of concrete flatwork at track level, American with Disabilities (ADA) compliant high-blocks (short raised platforms for wheelchair access to trains), various minor station amenities (trash cans, benches, etc), and pedestrian overpasses/underpasses. The historic resource is comprised of the ballast, bed and track. In all of the station locations, • the existing rail line would remain in its current (historic) alignment, and thus no direct impacts would occur. Wooden and iron/steel pedestrian train crossing bridges were common elements of major railroad stations of the early Front Range railways. Pedestrian bridges and ADA components, building layout, and parking facilities proposed under Package A would, however, introduce a modern design element into the historic setting. Modern station infrastructure would be considered an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, it is not expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. The Preferred Alternative commuter rail would operate on the existing line and would not directly or indirectly affect the switching or track. There would be no change in the current configuration of the railroad line due to commuter rail improvements in the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5BL.400.3 — Package A: Commuter rail facilities would be developed at several locations along this historic rail line in the Longmont vicinity. In all cases the existing rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. • Historic Preservation 3.15-36 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5BL.400.3 — Preferred Alternative: Commuter rail facilities would be developed at several locations along this historic rail line in the Longmont vicinity. In all cases the existing rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The construction of an adjacent maintenance road would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges at localities along the corridor would affect two segments of the railroad (5LR.1731.2 and 5LR.1327.6). Commuter rail stations and new track along the transportation corridor would contribute to new, but visually compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting of two other segments (5LR.1731.1 and 5LBL.400.3). Taking all of these indirect impacts at specific localities into account, the proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the entire linear resource eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in a no adverse effect with respect to the entire linear resource (the C&S Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties/5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, and 5BL.400). Package B: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality. Temporary construction • impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges at localities along the corridor would affect two segments of the railroad, 5LR.1731.2 and 5LR.1327.6). Taking these indirect impacts into account, the proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package B transit improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire linear resource (the C&S Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties/5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, and 5BL.400). Preferred Alternative: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges at localities along the corridor would affect two segments of the railroad (5LR.1731.2 and 5LR.1327.6). Commuter rail stations along the alignment would contribute to new, but visually compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting of two other segments (5LR.1731.1 and 5LBL.400.3). Taking all of these indirect impacts at specific localities into account, the proposed transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the entire linear resource eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in a no adverse effect with respect to the entire linear resource (the C&S Railroad in Larimer and Boulder counties 5LR.1731, 5LR.1327, and 5BL.400). • Historic Preservation 3.15-37 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet): Resource Description: The entire inlet ditch was built as part of a larger irrigation system developed in 1892. The ditch is 10 miles long ending at Cache la Poudre Reservoir. The ditch crosses 1-25 approximately 1,400 feet north of Prospect Road. The ditch crosses 1-25 at a drop box running east under 1-25, and continues southeast terminating at a point where the ditch parallels Prospect Road. This well maintained segment is 3,750 feet long, 36 feet wide, and 10 feet deep. The ditch segment is concrete lined and contains a modern drop box, control house and complex system of gated box culverts that are interactive with Lake Canal. The ditch traverses cultivated fields, and is sporadically lined with riparian habitat of shrubs, willows and cottonwoods. Eligibility Determination: The entire feature (5LR.11409) is eligible under A and C, but this segment (5LR.11409.1) is non-supporting. The Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet is eligible under A for its associated with period of intensive development of successful agriculture. The inlet ditch is significant as part of engineered water storage and delivery system associated with corporate irrigation projects in Colorado prior to the sugar beet industry. This segment is non-supporting due to modifications including piping under 1-25 and other improvements. Effects Determination — Package A: Package A would require an extended culvert at STA 4050. A 75-foot-long extension of double CBC farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at the same double CBC would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and the widened Prospect Road • interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp (see Figure 3.15-16). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT, therefore, have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. Effects Determination — Package B: Package B would require an extended culvert at STA 4050. A 75-foot-long extension of double CBC farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at the same double CBC would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and the widened Prospect Road interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp (see Figure 3.15-16). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore, have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. Effects Determination — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative would require an extended culvert at STA 4050. A 75-foot-long extension of double CBC farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at the same double CBC would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and the widened • Prospect Road interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp (see Figure 3.15-17). Historic Preservation 3.15-38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation0 . Figure 3.15-16 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet) — Packages A and B LEGENDHistorical Resources r .r - Packages A & B Resource Impact \` ,,i1/ Packages A & B ROW Boundary r I ® III' , - Ivo ' 5LR.995.4 & SLR. 11409. 1 Boundaries �� 0 �// Packages EOP Ey Bridge I Culvert '1 Oil I' Roadway Features g e Retaining Wall . , it . I N CParcel Boundaries `J Guardrails SB ate<'i' d 1r ryesA Aollibuillingbe `Lake Canal - I cel �.; = t.) il V I 7\ _.. 0 DI - air r,lit t ✓ - MPgli . ,* rislit, 04 . ' , k 41 Aof 1 i . , I ., . . ,.. . . i N _.. ,_ . ! Total length new 1 MP _ �ti . 10 foot culvert culverts 460 feet -.... is . extensions • •t ,4 I 4 Dual 75-foot-long . i ` If:: culvert extensions i I 1% 1, ; 1,._- = / ; Akih. i i / - I ' iI . "7 gi I ilii_AM .a._ _..ri : i i ilk, I , vl1 Existing 375-f oot-long .,,:: % el I 4+' i .�i . culverts under 1-25 *id j I I - ill I , %. -Net_ 1 ()cation Map , let (111 / //Hi I It - Sillott,„ . . 200 0 r \ ' 1 III I Feet North /� Historic Preservation 3.15-39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-17 5LR.11409.1 (Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet) — Preferred Alternative III LEGEND 410 Historical Resources ,., Preferred Alternative Resource Impact -, -.r Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary _ '.- , a 5LR.995.4 & 5LR.11409.1 Resource Boundary Preferred Alternative EOP M.... `a � Bridge /Culvert y' Roadway Features II-- Retaining Wall aParcel Boundaries j.„„. Guardrails i I , I ' ' wl.�.; -. T / -*• , ti •• • f, �, t r ' ? i i I J _ j ♦ 4 10-foot culvert ,• I extensions ....4. - .^� • a .. 2 I- , , _y I 4--- Ip , . Dual75-foot-long r culvert extensions i ill Existing 375-foot-long culverts under 1-25 c�� cz o J cr \ ,., 4,-"1/ r , `\ I * ` f -mmiggiik. , ..._ ,. . - M- 11 Cal i I li ;;#1 I 1 1 44 I -- i 1 i it igall i :- i I Ilk • �.a. I 95 Linear Feet Impacted Ali M jl Iler Location Map T ► Prospect=st I -- a �; l • � � � - i. - ►IIIrrill �' _ �. » ileWW1!I . 1 0 350 //1\ � � �, � .f , lami=' Feet North ' %...Th 114 'IA. 1" r gin a 111 Historic Preservation 3.1540 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation • . Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road and the Preferred Alternative improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore, have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. 5LR.11391 (Gallatin Residence) Resource Description: This property, located on the east side of 1-25 approximately 0.75 mile northwest of the town of Timnath on CR Road 40, contains a historic wood frame dwelling constructed in 1925. The house is a side-gabled Bungalow-type structure with wide overhanging eaves and a projecting, front-gabled porch featuring a balustrade railing. The dwelling is surrounded by mature shade trees. Five small outbuildings, including three sheds, are located on the property. Eligibility Determination: The Gallatin Residence (5LR.11391) is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as a well preserved, representative specimen of a rural Bungalow type dwelling in Colorado, surrounded by its historic agricultural setting. Effect Determination — Package A: This 2.6-acre property is located east of an active rail line, and all proposed improvements to 1-25 in this vicinity are located west of this rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A improvements would result in no historic • properties affected with respect to the Gallatin Residence. Effect Determination — Package B: This 2.6-acre property is located east of an active rail line, and all proposed improvements to 1-25 in this vicinity are located west of this rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Gallatin Residence. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: This 2.6-acre property is located east of an active rail line, and all proposed improvements to 1-25 in this vicinity are located west of this rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Gallatin Residence. 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the Boxelder Ditch crosses 1-25, Harmony Road, and the northbound highway ramp at the Harmony Road interchange. The earthen irrigation ditch is approximately 12 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the existing roadways was altered when the highway was constructed and routed through a steel pipe culvert. The ditch was originally built in the mid-1880s. The entire ditch is approximately five miles long. The recorded segment in the project APE (5LR.2160.1) is 3,194 feet or approximately 0.6 mile long. Grassy vegetation covers both banks of the ditch in most areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. • Eligibility Determination: The Boxelder Ditch (5LR.2160) was officially determined to be NRHP-eligible by the Colorado Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Historic Preservation 3.15-41 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • in 1996. The ditch was re-evaluated for the North 1-25 Draft EIS as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. The segment within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, design, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, the I-25/Harmony Road interchange would be modified, including widening of the on- and off-ramps. Boxelder Ditch is currently enclosed inside a pipe underneath the existing ramps, fill slopes and mainline 1-25 traffic lanes. To accommodate construction of a new southbound off-ramp from 1-25, which would be situated 90 feet west of the existing ramp alignment, a 75-foot-long section of the open Boxelder Ditch would need to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the ramp. The remainder of the ditch located within the area proposed for Package A highway improvements is already piped under 1-25, the northbound onramp to 1-25, and Harmony Road, and no new direct impacts would occur in those locations (see Figure 3.15-18). A small direct impact would occur where the ditch would pass beneath a new property access road on the southeast side of the interchange. This new access road is a cul-de-sac, required to replace the existing access from the abandoned east frontage road. A total of 62.5 feet of open ditch would have to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the proposed cul-de-sac. Installation of the new culvert would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to the original condition • and appearance. The two box culverts required under Package A would enclose a total of 137.5 feet of open ditch that retain integrity, but would not alter its historic alignment. These direct impacts constitute less than one percent of the entire length of the Boxelder Ditch, and would not significantly diminish or alter characteristics that render the ditch eligible for NRHP, and FHWA, FTA and CD0T have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Impacts are identical to Package A. FHWA, FTA and CD0T have determined that Package B would also result in no adverse effect to the entire Boxelder Ditch (see Figure 3.15-18). Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, the I-25/Harmony Road interchange would be modified, including widening of the on- and off-ramps. Boxelder Ditch is currently enclosed inside a pipe underneath the existing ramps, fill slopes and mainline 1-25 traffic lanes. To accommodate construction of a new southbound off-ramp from 1-25, which would be situated 90 feet west of the existing ramp alignment, a 124-foot-long section of the open Boxelder Ditch would need to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the ramp. The remainder of the ditch located within the area proposed for Preferred Alternative highway improvements is already piped under 1-25, the northbound on-ramp to 1-25, and Harmony Road, and no new direct impacts would occur in those locations (see Figure 3.15-19). A small direct impact would occur where the ditch would pass beneath a new property access • road on the southeast side of the interchange. This new access road is a cul-de-sac, required to replace the existing access from the abandoned east frontage road. A total of 70 feet of open ditch would have to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the proposed cul-de-sac. Historic Preservation 3.15-42 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIIIFigure 3.15-18 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder Ditch) — Packages A and B i II ;a I/ LEGEND -8." t.\ A Historical Resources ill 4 de 4 Packages A & B Resource impact 11 II - j:," . _ . Total impacts to ditch . 137.5 feet Packages A & B ROW Boundary II i f 5LR.2160.1 Property Boundary II II Packages EOP H Bridge /Culvert - Roadway Features H Retaining VVali III II it = Parcel Boundaries A—, Guardrails ill II ' Open ditch placed clignIMPOI II ell II ' 4 inside extended culvert; It 75 Linear Feet Impacted '' i `u"'t' , I ' ' II II tM I\ ii u 4 . Ay , II 11 t •� tI j u AIL- ^ Sr ` . ' t ii Ill .1f 1 11 t 11 .4I 11 11 - Existing culvert 11 .., `` i -.;.- ' r: 0 E H.h _ MoNY�_ e killitql �x � �i I � 1 r I G \\ I Ik . '• I , h- ,, �', I rvr . Tic. ; ^ Existing culvert • 4 1 qtr I ^ 1 III \ ' ' fir . 04 A I j li If,. I ki' w ,t_. 4\` Open ditch placed t inside new culvert; = I i' ' 62.5 Linear Feet Impacted / I : , t 0 300 Z l Feet 1 �^ North II \ ill t ; A al Historic Preservation 3.15-43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-19 5LR.2160.1 (Boxelder DitIII ch) — Preferred Alternative w � - - , • .............. LEGEND Historical Resources v I Preferred Alternative Resource Impact it 1 r I Total impacts to ditch: 194 feet Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary I 5LR.2160. 1 Resource Boundary 1 . t ' Preferred Alternative IF. Bridge / Culvert 4I ' • } ' POP Roadway Features III--il Retaining Nall 4 j `� - ,� _ rtr__j ^ • C Parcel Boundaries L�A Guardrails - • �� t Open ditch placed c i► """ x inside extended culvert; • I 711111124 Linear Feet Impacted - • '.• I. ` • ! v ' :V13 :ii 1147.IllirT ,.', .1- • \ \' .. oda 46. • 1 , I !: r. -�`' fit 7.7 g'. a ter` t i .0 - 1 A r. 'c 140 \irr. ,rj 11 r �, Existing culvert `+. Imo. iy •1.-----TE=earmony_Rd a J ' • ..} �''�--1 '' ....? <1_ .-•1 1 t,l0. - - 1t4<r •rte • -see I i . *Aes . l 1t_ • - • •• - Existing advert A '�� Li** 6: ' O.:. -- Al -: I ir / ' ,-- - -. ,� x 1 ,- . I 1 r r.• I- ! il.� NV\s\ Open ditch placed I i inside new culvert; f ti ; . \\\ 70 Linear Feet Impacted ;i ' location. M p ' - 1. II x . . ll 1 1 1' VN i 0 300 / 1 ' ` mi I Feet North f � Ill Historic Preservation 3.15-44 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Installation of the new culvert would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to the original condition and appearance. The two box culverts required under the Preferred Alternative would enclose a total of 194 feet of open ditch that retain integrity, but would not alter its historic alignment. These direct impacts constitute less than one percent of the entire length of the Boxelder Ditch, and would not significantly diminish or alter characteristics that render the ditch eligible for NRHP, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. 5LR.8930 (Louden Ditch) Resource Description: The ditch was originally built in 1871. The entire ditch is approximately 23.25 miles long. The excavated earthen ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. Two segments of the historic Louden Ditch are located within the APE (see Figure 3.15-20). Segment 5LR.8930.1 crosses 1-25 and the existing frontage road at LCR 30 East. The portion of the ditch that crosses under 1-25 and the frontage road was placed within a culvert when the highway and frontage roads were constructed in the 1960s. The documented segment in the project APE (5LR.8930.1) is 3,316 feet long. Heavy riparian growth exists along the northwest banks of the ditch. The remainder of the ditch has been dredged within the project area and no vegetation is present • along the ditch levee. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. The second segment 5LR.8930.2 of the Louden Ditch crosses 1-25 and the existing frontage road. Here the earthen ditch is approximately 8 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under 1-25 and the frontage road was altered when 1-25 was constructed in the 1960s and the ditch was placed inside a CBC. The segment occurring in the project APE (5LR.8930.2) is 200 feet long. Both banks of the ditch areas are lined with grassy vegetation. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930) is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Both segments have experienced modifications near the highway, but much of the ditch remains in its original alignment. This ditch segment retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Both segments (5LR.8930.1 and 5LR.8930.2) were found to retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Louden Ditch in Larimer County. • Historic Preservation 3.15-45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E1S information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-20 5LR.8930 (Louden Ditch) — Segments intersecting project APE 0 LEGEND * Historic Ditches �. ~rrpm ~ Study Corridors • 85 /\/ Highways •� "/ Arterial Roads C •� J Regional Study Area Pierce .` Fort Collins-a _ . ` City Boundaries / Q Cities & Towns in Project Areai. — Ault ‘s r ? 7 ! I irnnath, O Sava ance Faun t1 LO7r 5LR.8930.2 � _ ! l lUCHf1R• .� 392' -N.-- 5LR.8930.1 f Greeley , -- 34l"\--f 2c3 i Loveland '. `3 ll l Foams I Campion 17 Johnstown / . / Li eHVoid O M�nikt 85 / i ItAracr IIII 1 . 0 r I__ . watealir 1 ongmont I ' •r I • 1bllmar O I / 0 Firestone• �/ Nwrot T Q Fredgick 4 t ' // `a . .Keno Fat ls. S N ; / o lutt arrei I V 1 fp t.- 0ii f0 Wattrxbc+g Boulder f I ' dt ayen. N.J i / �_ 1___ }, l.U�rnllr de c;::-.:..4 '�.-.-• BIDhIon i 111LjN .r 1 .` �� V;Tr)llint, / \ 36 287 la II•.MIill.. , 2 ` / L r i Deliver�� 70 , I I . ' ® / r PI 1 a _.21,1 I 2 4 8 1i Miles North - k ,--\ 1 '\(\ Ill Historic Preservation 3.15-46 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.1 — Package A: This segment of the Louden Ditch is presently conveyed beneath 1-25 inside a box culvert approximately 260 feet long. At this location, Package A involves re-alignment of the 1-25 northbound and southbound lanes approximately 90 feet to the east of existing highway and widening each direction from two lanes to three lanes. The new corridor footprint would include relocating the east frontage road farther east of the current alignment. To provide adequate space for the re-aligned northbound lanes and east frontage road, an additional 225 feet of open ditch would be enclosed inside a box culvert underneath the new roadways. The new culvert would be extended from the end of the existing box culvert located on the east flank of the existing east frontage road. LCR 30 on the west side of 1-25 would be rebuilt along the same alignment, although the template would be widened slightly to the north. The west frontage road would be abandoned south of the interchange. A new road (Byrd Drive) would run south from LCR 30 and is functionally intended to replace the west frontage road. At this location the historic ditch follows a parallel course close to the south edge of existing LCR 30. A 91-foot-long segment of open ditch would be enclosed inside a new box culvert to pass beneath the new Byrd Drive connection to LCR Road 30 (see Figure 3.15-21). Construction of the new culverts would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would possibly be temporarily diverted during construction, but would remain operational. Ditch waters would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary and affected areas would be restored to • their original condition and appearance. The direct and temporary impacts caused by placing a total of 316 feet of open ditch into a new box culvert extension on the east side of 1-25 and a short culvert beneath Byrd Road do not affect its historic alignment or function. Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.1 — Package B: The impacts to the Louden Ditch under Package B are the similar to those described for Package A. Re-alignment and widening of 1-25 highway lanes and the east frontage road in Package B improvements would have a 45-foot-wider configuration east of the existing frontage road. This results in a 45-foot-longer section of open ditch on the east side of 1-25 being placed inside a box culvert extension under the new roadway. The ditch impacts caused at Byrd Road would be the similar to Package A. The total direct impacts to the Louden Ditch caused by Package B improvements are 270 feet of open ditch to be placed in a new box culvert extension on the east side of 1-25 (as opposed to 225 feet under Package A), and 87 feet of open ditch to be placed beneath the proposed Byrd Road (same linear distance as Package A). Package B would create total combined direct impacts to 357 feet of open ditch as opposed to 316 feet of open ditch under Package A. Temporary effects from construction activities would be the same as in Package A (see Figure 3.15-22). The direct and temporary impacts resulting from Package B are similar in nature but slightly greater than those resulting from Package A, and do not affect the ditch's historic alignment or function. • Historic Preservation 3.15-47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS �,. information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-21 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch) — Package A • ,... , ,/ __L . 1 LEGEND ,* ":'jif" R Historical Resources -IR l: �,,, b Package A Resource Impact i . -spa: I 4I Package A ROW Boundary �'` I \ I —A, ; , '-4ss r j • 5LR.8930.1 Property Boundary �� ,i c -fit'}Y � ,l I Package A EOP �. Bridge /Culvert _ rn ,� ` ' 1 � ii pun Roadway Features Icy Retaining Wall \ di: — __ . •fekIsr� Parcel Boundaries `� Guardrails (� 1. r i , • - . r -• Riliti IF . I • IS , v• a f , .j , __.: ,,_ te-ar, .. _: r. . D Rh , ... . SFr - -- 7. ,:isprislit. t,. .s. . . . '�. hi '�—j 11 --- . I.0 *. , _ •III'tea •' __ .! ♦ . , • 15,- w 1, 4hi* zfl Existing culvert T ' 1_� , , i 1,i iiti _ - 4 Ai 0 i ;� \ � ' Open ditch placed ti �� j p 1 inside new culvert; . �. - . 4 ! er ,� • 91 linear feet impacted •- a '�`�� fh III • • tea . ." � 113/4,1! Open ditch placed a / \ inside extended culvert; Li c? \, 225 linear feet impacted 1 1 ;� : A _ Ais t , i r -I' a f Total impacts to ditch J of 316 linear feet -� i T I '� .;- I . .` / , N / . Location Map i 0 300 0 r , INNEINI=' Feet North ,, . r . __. i.i_ l i La, 4 1 III Historic Preservation 3.15-48 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 3.15-22 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch) — Package B • • LEGEND % ' •~ `l "Oil I 4 Historical Resources r +' ' ' Packa e B Resource Im act • • ' '1 • g p Package B ROW Boundary • 1 , .. I. j' , , 5LR.8930.1 Property Boundary •�) •' ' ■ I il 1 1 Package B EOP — Bridge /Culvert ' • ., j , i . Roadway Features Retaining Wall -�' � 1 i l rilmiii Parcel Boundaries '- Guardrails • *ram- ;0 , --___ 0,,, _v__ . , 1 - . ..,,,, fi - - %,.-- 4* , , -01011 kii, _ I , • ,fA7Ve ”- h 4 , I - I i ;� Existing culvert Y - sad �� 1 p' / .\, . 1• mil- � \ 1 _ • , • i I • • ; l ( 11 i � _ EIL�CR'30� ` _ _ . _-.. _ - _ III - ". ` -.IL 1, 1 , 'fri • 0 „.3. >, ier,,,,,,,,,ft.„. . . , . . , ., „... . . _ 0,, . i . , i mi 1 .,6y •I , ' 1( Open • ditch placed inside new culvert; --� :"�� 87 linear feet impacted t i i - #i M.i 1 I r pen ditch placed inside extended culvert: 7 \ 270 linear feet impacted = 't I 1 * t a� i; . / • --= T I Total impacts to ditch - / ' ¢ of 357 linear feet / 4}1 . i4 I 1 I Location Map 1 111-- T\ _ AV 'I . 0 300 ill { I Feet North - I 1111I11L — - —_ _ _♦ �� Historic Preservation 3.15-49 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.1 — Preferred Alternative: This segment of the Louden Ditch is presently conveyed beneath 1-25 inside a box culvert approximately 260 feet long. At this location, the Preferred Alternative involves re-alignment of the 1-25 northbound and southbound lanes approximately 90 feet to the east of existing highway and widening each direction to add one general purpose lane and one TEL. The new corridor footprint would include relocating the east frontage road farther east of the current alignment. To provide adequate space for the re-aligned northbound lanes and east frontage road, an additional 173 feet of open ditch would be enclosed inside a box culvert underneath the new roadways. The new culvert would be extended from the end of the existing box culvert located on the east flank of the existing east frontage road. The historic ditch follows a parallel course close to the south edge of the existing LCR 30 on the west side of 1-25 which would be rebuilt along the same alignment, however, the template would be widened slightly which would encroach into the ditch on the south side of the roadway. This would result in an additional 524 linear feet of impacts to the ditch. The west frontage road would be abandoned south of the interchange. A new road (Byrd Drive) would run south from LCR 30 and is functionally intended to replace the west frontage road. A 91-foot-long segment of open ditch would be enclosed inside a new box culvert to pass beneath the new Byrd Drive connection to LCR Road 30 (see Figure 3.15-23). Construction of the new culverts would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would possibly be temporarily diverted during construction, but would remain operational. Ditch waters would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction • equipment or construction activities would be temporary and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The direct and temporary impacts caused by placing a total of 524 feet of open ditch into a new box culvert extension on the east side of 1-25 and a short culvert beneath Byrd Drive do not affect its historic alignment or function. Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.2— Package A: None of the proposed Package A commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Impacts to segment 5LR.8930.2— Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements include construction of a parallel maintenance road adjacent to the existing rail line. The historic ditch is currently culverted where it passes beneath the rail line at this location. The maintenance road would be located on the west side existing rail line and would require an extension to the existing culvert. A total of 296 linear feet of this historic ditch would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative in this area (see Figure 3.15-24). Construction of this new culvert would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would possibly be temporarily diverted during construction, but would remain operational. Ditch waters would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. • Historic Preservation 3.15-50 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 3.15-23 5LR.8930.1 (Louden Ditch) — Preferred Alternative 1, _. .-.,,.,e. 7r-- LEGEND tJ!:; ' 4t-4 Historical Resources • I 1:161- 41-43 ' �" � Preferred Alternative Resource Impact t , I-v, Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 1 ' , }, *t .<�°r r ' ' -; , y 5LR.8930. 1 Resource Boundary �, �, , kr P.4 Preferred Alternative �. Bridge /Culvert 4i i� Ati.. A...4.411 `` t '�EOP >f -A a - Roadway Features M.. Retaining Wall ~"-t'i r' " ; J • Parcel Boundaries A., Guardrails ,l — r= % 1_ �^ 41 'DJ' ia.il�r� �. f ia� � 1 - _ �. � a .,fir2 ( IE . to -- t--2:1/2p ILA ..r'taw , sc a Q-- , � i-�fr Existing culvert .• 1L ' ..�� 1 stjesiii r t ` as y.;>i‘ -"We4iVoi;C:ft, nitre: 'was A. tia . � 'k laje4 et IIVII*1 .14:elet ill& ' II , ill I E LCR 30 it J • I ,ri III a, �' .r.. a loir Additional 524 Linear Feet Impacted �; _ r I; . 11, ir gfr L l 4 , M� e as Open ditch placed 4 i . inside new culvert; Open ditch placed 91 linear Feet Impacted inside extended culvert; l 4 iit 173 linear feet impacted . . r \ s - 'h', 1 ; 1Was `+ i____ I. . , +T.__ _cart:t_, _.„._____774 j Total impacts to ditch _- of 788 linear feet iI %I r e. I 41t t II \ 1 --. .i' . ` j :Tay , 41 el ',. Location Map. I 1 V\ 4 0 300 imiilli=l North ! ; 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-51 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-24 LR.8930.2 (Louden Ditch — Preferred Alternative III . .„, . . x LEGEND ., _ . . Historical Resources ' ,, - Preferred Alternative Resource Impact " M� h ! • _ Preferred Alternative Comm Rail - t ^M ;- - ,, - ROW Boundary '. j,_ 5LR 8930.2 Resource Boundary t "p Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries F. Bridge / Culvert ; 1 i • v` x k_ :r '1III _ •. : . . Maintenance road centerline; . , p 296 Linear Feet Impacted i , , . i I 1 • 1 I . - ‘ • I , tips p. -r-t`--� - A - T i i c • t i 1. lil .� ju M t •_ . ' i' s :::-.4.47"L'illtatsittis ,a. , "-' ic to 145441 n Map r, } 1 _ y tl "'• 0 200 lad Feet North • Historic Preservation 3.15-52 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: No impacts to segment 5LR.8930.2 from proposed commuter rail improvements; however, 316 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert in segment 5LR.8930.1. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be permanently compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in an adverse effect to the entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930). Package B: 361 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert in segment 5LR.8930.1. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be permanently compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B transit improvements would result in an adverse effect to the entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930). Preferred Alternative: Impacts to segment 5LR.8930 from the Preferred Alternative include 788 feet of open ditch open ditch placed inside a culvert in segment 5LR.8930.1 for highway improvements and of 296 linear feet from segment 5LR.8930.2 placed inside a culvert as a result of proposed commuter rail improvements. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be permanently compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in an adverse effect to the entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930). • 5LR.1815 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) Resource Description: The total length of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Fort Collins Branch rail line is 25 miles. Two segments of the rail line are located within the APE (see Figure 3.15-25). Segment 5LR.1815.2 is a 1.81-mile long segment of the historic railroad. The 1-25 alignment crosses over this segment of the railroad alignment just north of the US 34 interchange. The active railroad segment traverses open farm land throughout its length and runs parallel to the Loveland and Greeley Canal (5LR.503.2) along part of this route. Segment 5LR.1815.3 is a 1,053-foot-long segment of the historic UPRR Fort Collins Branch. US 34 crosses over the railroad alignment just east of the 1-25 interchange. Eligibility Determination: In 2001, the UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815) in Larimer County was officially determined by OAHP to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of railway transportation, which facilitated the settlement and economic development of Colorado. Both railroad segments in the North 1-25 APE (5LR.1815.2 and 5LR.1815.3) retain sufficient integrity of original location, design, and function to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815). • Historic Preservation 3.15-53 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-25 5LR.1815 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) — Segments III Intersecting Project APE LEGEND i i ,/s/ Historic Railroads and Ditches r- ~ Study Corridors :•'-edit -.• 85 "/ Highways !f \ /\/ Arterial Roads ® ` I_J Regional Study Areaith* \ / City Boundaries I Fort Collins `\ 14 a Cities & Towns in Project Area tier \ i = 257 '1, Tread) 1 lv_.. 4tx' ancr rI: f ' 287 - t' - -� '4Kistr t I - .hip. •, 392; • is • 5LR.1815.2 1 \ Greeley .1 34 j ► ! Loveland -..4kGardenCrtv.� 34 ' _r \ [„an i _ i la Salle • / 5LR.1815.3 ��"""a n '�i6OT � I t"--1 85 L' Beru,'i,d l o Milken / I i ,ter / a mead r Finite 66 I�. __. _ -� I ' 1 I 1. , . 1 DJ 1- --kr Faesu i f� ne 1 �/ N wur `+�' �lj Freda ck I T /. 1 f I l - J � fart Lupton on (iuihvrel I I o si 0 I WallenbergI Boulder Y rH r . k v / gib. '�, o Eu"a" / Enxl,dIL,f • N. / 93 N.. 4O,. 1:. ' / - �� L 36 287 �. i , • / / 7 ♦. / • �-�- --1 f! Denver— A.. 70 - ,/ FN . , : A /-# • , , - - I l ' n ' I Miles North ) _ ____ . -,._.g.1 . 1 i ).\--NN. , Historic Preservation 3.15-54 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.2— Package A: 1-25 is currently bridged over the historic UPRR rail line via identical 158-foot-long, 37-foot-wide concrete bridges for each of the northbound and southbound lanes. Under Package A, the 1-25 template would be widened on the east side of the northbound roadway and on the west side of the southbound roadway to accommodate four general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The existing bridges would be demolished and would be replaced by two new, 174-foot-long, 75-foot-wide bridge structures to span the rail line at the same general position as the old bridges. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers and abutments would be placed outside the historic rail corridor, so that no direct impacts would occur to the resource (see Figure 3.15-26). The larger bridges would increase the amount of railway located underneath the bridge deck. Because these bridges replace existing modern bridges within the 1-25 transportation corridor, the indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway is not expected to further diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Installation of the new bridge piers and deck structures would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The railroad would remain operational. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially • diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.2 — Package B: Under Package B, the northbound and southbound 1-25 roadways spanning the historic railroad would be substantially widened (approximately 96 feet on the east side of the northbound roadway and 104 feet on the west side of the southbound roadway), to accommodate a new template containing two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing bridges carrying 1-25 over the railroad would be replaced with one wider and longer 174-foot- long bridge structure. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor. No direct impacts would occur(see Figure 3.15-27). Indirect and temporary construction effects would be the same as in Package A. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.2 — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, the northbound and southbound 1-25 roadways spanning the historic railroad would be substantially widened to accommodate a new template containing three general purpose lanes plus one barrier-separated TEL in each direction. The existing bridges carrying 1-25 over the railroad would be replaced with two new bridges (120 and 160-foot-wide) to span the rail line at the same general position as the old bridges. The alignment and operation of the railroad would not be changed, and the new bridge piers would be placed outside the historic rail corridor. No direct impacts would occur (see Figure 3.15-28). • Indirect and temporary construction effects would be the same as in Package A. The proposed transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Historic Preservation 3.15-55 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-26 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) — Package A III ril i, 1 LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact i , I Package A ROW Boundary 5LR.1815.2 Property Boundary 1 Package A EOP H Bridge / Culvert Roadway Features .-4 Retaining WallI ° CParcel Boundaries —J Guardrails r r I. i f i ` I Afy The existing 1-25 bridges would be I ' demolished and replaced with 2 new 38 foot wide bridges at approximately the • same location as the old bridges „ ' 9 .1 ii • 1 ill . . . _ ._ t kticitt,... Optill No Areas Directly ImpactedIII 5 ik ,, . \ wirr 4, op ., , o ..,.. ,.. ..........„. Ill ., ., .. 4 r \NN • 7 •\ !, i i \ I , r 4 P r — 7 Wes• ir II! I r 1 _ j s.,, / I',rrfffTTTIT,,, iii .. f . SBI 1 Location Map r Pi, 1771 • r 0 300 II El • INIS I Feet North 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-56 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation 111 Figure 3.15-27 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) — Package B LEGEND Historical Resources ! Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR 1815 2 Property Boundary Package B EOP H Bridge : Culvert Roadway Features �. Retaining Wall " Parcel Boundaries A,...A Guardrails Wi li 11 The existing 1-25 bridges spanning the railroad will be demolished. They would be Ili replaced by a single 75 foot wide bridge. The new bridge will span 101 feet more railroad than the existing 2 bridges. . 411 , , , , , , 1 . ii, . , I • iii ril. ! ii fri . D i, ., i II ‘., _. �_ , I • • k. s CrCr� [ , Si ._ oLssa- \ly t Ili' No Areas Directly Impacted • 1 ll i lI • N x_ . . ; is Location Map 0 300 Q l Feet North t III _ _ .Historic Preservation 3.15-57 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-28 5LR.1815.2 (Union Pacific Railroad Fort Collins Branch) — Preferred Ill Alternative 1( 't LEGEND ...o,= Historical Resources 0 Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary III 5LR.1815.2 Resource Boundary r "-mint, Preferred Alternative W.I. Bridge /Culved EOP The existing 1-25 bridges would be Roadway Features M- MI Retaining Walldemolished and replaced with 2 new IR Parcel Boundaries A...,4 Guardrails _ bridges (120 & 160 foot wide) at y approximately the same location as the old bridges. The new bridges r would respectively span 63 and 103 feet more railroad than than � ®� the existing 2 brides. 11 M 4 :r i r : r. I r , . . _ I , 1 . - a . 1 ilk No Areas Directly Impacted\0II I C1 . . • . . 4, . .‘ . . _,• \' , I. ` 'A I * ; ,, i / - IIISII: F ! . ' . t NI I / w \\, ' . `\ wv ® -\ , . i �. '. 7 t % -.. sil • \ Location Ma` P ' P. Z - rq 0 250 Feet North I I 4 . - • *,,,r'' ` ' • 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-58 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation transportation. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.3— Package A: This historic resource crosses US 34 over 700 feet outside the construction limits of the proposed Package A improvements. No direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.3 — Package B: The (lack of) effects to the historic segment of the UPRR under Package B are the same as Package A. Impacts to segment 5LR.1815.3— Preferred Alternative: The (lack of) effects to the historic segment of the UPRR under the Preferred Alternative are the same as Package A. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality within the North 1-25 APE. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would occur at segment 5LR.1815.2. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire UPRR Fort Collins Branch (SLR.1815). Package B: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality within the North 1-25 APE. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would occur at segment 5LR1815.2. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter • characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815). Preferred Alternative: No direct impacts would occur at any segment locality within the North 1-25 APE. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would occur at segment 5LR.1815.2. The proposed transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire UPRR Fort Collins Branch (5LR.1815). 5LR.503 (Loveland and Greeley Canall Resource Description: The canal was originally built in 1861. The entire canal is approximately 31 miles long. Two documented segments are in the project APE (see Figure 3.15-29). Segment 5LR.503.2 of the historic Loveland and Greeley Canal crosses 1-25 as well as the parallel frontage road is 2.62 miles long. The canal is approximately 39 feet wide and 26 feet deep. During the construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, the original canal alignment was preserved but the integrity of the canal in this location was compromised by placing it within a CBC under the highway. The three-sided, pre-cast CBC measures 23 feet wide and 402.6 feet long. Both banks of the canal are grass-covered, and riprap is used for bank stabilization in many areas. The area surrounding the canal segment includes retail and residential development. • The earthen ditch segment 5LR.503.4 follows the historic channel alignment through the old town area of Loveland. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Historic Preservation 3.15-59 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation Figure 3.15-29 5LR.503 (Loveland and Greeley Canal) — Segments Intersecting Project • APE LEGEND Historic Ditches y- � —" u'.ixlington • ,%/ Study Corridors ,•'� , ,' '' -.‘ t851 "/ Highways 1287 , '/ C • /\/ Arterial Roads i I ' � - Pilate , I__ ] Regional Study Area \ City Boundaries f;lrl iullm� 1 b.. - : .-. a Cities & Towns in Project Area = Ault 1 IIII/I��•I•I•I.1.1.1 ppp446��i 257 . 1 I mutath 0 Favr Severance .1 287 ' Ari ..__ Wiras,i.�_ txetr,e \ 392.F 5LR.503.2 Greeley 61/4 Loveland • 34 5LR 503.4 - i !4 / la sal t' / ! Campion Johnstown / . I •O AlGllikar 85 i/ I . _-. I / _ %. / / • Mead, / 1 '/ yI L.HJIIIOIII I l I %// a Fiesta* �/ N of 87 ' Al Frederick I { / r / q (),x:001 Fat lepton %,7 0 futt�arrel I 0. Watley-berg i ag &xtlder r tvwl I i latayate Ate_laighnl 7 / \, a r0y1'.1KC \��"� 1'I F1 CAf0tiCl7 �. N% I,.,.ta yew / • 36 287 / \: // \ ` / 2 it__ �\ • ‘., // Denver— '�� 1 ') . . I iI _. 0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ )1/ 9 {_i -ilmmiii Miles North , • Historic Preservation 3.15-60 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Eligibility Determination: In 1984, the Loveland & Greeley Canal was evaluated by OAHP as NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to agricultural development in the Loveland area. The Loveland and Greeley Canal is nearly 150 years old and evokes the historic agricultural era and conveys the important contribution that irrigation canals made to local history. Segment 503.2 retains physical integrity except where it was placed in a culvert beneath 1-25. Segment (5LR.503.4) retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Loveland and Greeley Canal in Larimer County. Impacts to segment 5LR.503.2 — Package A: Package A involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction for a total of six traffic lanes. Although more mainline travel lanes would be constructed on 1-25, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way without affecting the existing culvert conveying the canal underneath the highway. A new US 34 interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp would be constructed outside the existing highway right-of-way and would cross the Loveland and Greeley Canal east of the existing culvert opening. The existing box culvert must be extended an additional 70 feet on the east • side of 1-25 and the north-bound 1-25 on-ramp would be built over the top of the new extended culvert (see Figure 3.15-30). Construction of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access. The ditch would likely be diverted temporarily during culvert construction but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from construction- related sedimentation. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Impacts to segment 5LR.503.2— Package B: This Package involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. Although more lanes would be constructed, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way with the exception of a new US 34 to north-bound 1-25 onramp. Effects to the historic canal are the same as would occur under Package A, and involves extending the existing three-sided CBC beneath 1-25 an additional 70 feet to the east to accommodate the proposed new 1-25 onramp. Temporary impacts due to construction of the US 34 ramp and installation of the new culvert would be the same as for Package A (see Figure 3.15-30). Impacts to segment 5LR.503.2 — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general 411 purpose lanes and a barrier-separated TEL in each direction for a total of eight traffic lanes. Although more mainline travel lanes would be constructed on 1-25, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way without affecting the existing culvert conveying the canal underneath the highway. Historic Preservation 3.15.61 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-30 5LR.503.2 (Loveland and Greeley Canal) — Packages A and B III �_ _ .. _ - , . , .. LEGEND t ' , i „ Historical Resources i ,' - Packages A & B Resource Impact I q Packages A & B ROW Boundary IN I it 5LR 503.2 Property Boundary ill III Packages EOP UU Bridge / Culvert + I a aii - Roadway Features W.. Retaining Vlfall IV 1 R I f aParcel Boundaries �, Guardrails !I . 4. . f ' M ib i .1. • to 1 .- . krt t '. ` ,:.tit. • • . _ • 4.: 1 r4 • ilt ' — "�. it,- --f- - lig I • Existing culvert ` • 1 , fit . a i . 7 i pH:110159, • i le ..I. . ! IllUI i • r i t ,i. I i - ; : - - '7; -' G • Open ditch placed inside extended culverts; K ' "` �t 70 Linear Feet Impacted r a i r • i ♦Y - �.4 .. ," i . • 0 ' el at / 7 ,. "-.V. ap r I - - i , . IF i / .. ! IP/ r.. . ((i!gii: i Y RMINIVI ilik ,I �� " ilk j Illir in . _ + r I - 11 . T ..w r },1, glelh l ` iI lit t,f__: I A I r. .. .. . . t Op , . , e , . ,, l I , 44H.:4 ,1 ,H,,,,, , , .... _ , ,. .,,_ , .,. ._,._ , , . , . Jel..\., ithotir ,it, 1 . " , al ; II\-Li Location Map,' - -- , iikr.' rr ) i i. 3 0 v\i0 200 I ' 0 ' ' Feet '� North • F a •• / Liti • • - Historic Preservation 3.15-62 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. A new US 34 interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp would be constructed outside the existing highway right-of-way and would cross the Loveland and Greeley Canal east of the existing culvert opening. The existing box culvert must be extended an additional 65 feet on the east side of 1-25 and the north-bound 1-25 on-ramp would be built over the top of the new extended culvert (see Figure 3.15-31). Construction of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access. The ditch would likely be diverted temporarily during culvert construction but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from construction- related sedimentation. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Impacts to segment 5LR.503.4— Package A: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements under Package A would cause changes to this historic property. Impacts to segment 5LR.503.4— Preferred Alternative: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements under the Preferred Alternative would cause changes to this historic property. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: The 70-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. This change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would • result in no adverse effect to the entire Loveland and Greeley Canal (5LR.503). Package B: Although 70 feet of canal with integrity on the east side of 1-25 would be placed in a culvert extension, this change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render the canal eligible for the NRHP, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Preferred Alternative: The 65-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under the Preferred Alternative would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. This change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the entire Loveland and Greeley Canal (5LR.503). • Historic Preservation 3.15.63 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-31 5LR.503.2 (Loveland and Greeley Canal) — Preferred Alternative • _ - T , ' LEGEND - Historical Resources .h 11 w+.�. , r. Preferred Attemative Resource Impact 141-,41 l' , If I - Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary �` Cr� 'rt "r' C' ! II Ai . 5LR.503.2 Resource Boundary r u , •J� t: w Preferred Alternative { , r . �� Bridge /Culvert EOP a • ,� 1 Roadway Features a 4 Retaining Wall M, • • • k- a • 1' T , CParcel Boundaries A—, Guardrails I I 'a - ! I + • 4r. Ett et.* ;I,4:, 72_,LE . •: 1, : (1 . . . . • • • r t" i I •* •f~3 v' l • a • ` rr� , lilLs Ili 41 * i : e 4 •-•••• w.. .. , r i . .A 1 ! r. : a� i • : .� _ a _ ! I • • or, cal ar e 4 `; . . ' • �` .v. a 11 Existing culvert y- ,- *• _ :: a a_allm- - . *CI fl-7-- • i + - F - . • • - 1•r 1 . 01 46 III • I .iw , ., .2. . C.is • r , `'I Open ditch placed inside extended culverts, '%'"`'i' �1 1 165 Linear Feet Impacted - - \ Sins ` ` �' aasr • 1 . %41t4 .. ., 1/1 1 -a• ' t ♦' • b y i = 1 __ f t" 1 ., r : 1 / •r w I• T / .. $ Tt # II a r P .r..- /' i -e r' a�"t t A / II : I a, I • \i. gyp' alaP 76% s r p • . - / T i r I, :1 7 a_, Liii ii.e. '' • - .\ T .,/ \ .� , p6 . iii Op '~ jet I, �/ i ,, - '� I . l ♦ •"Ai .lj,,jlc,,. Location Map:,' - Dr t _,f ilk Of 4 a a d.- a a , r r • • 5, 0 200 S ' - + fr .,p, , ! • qc ir t ' Feet di North am p • mit ` �. 91: l' , ' 0 -+ Historic Preservation 3.15-64 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 5LR.8928 (Farmers' Ditch' Resource Description: This irrigation ditch was originally built in 1864. The entire Farmer's Ditch is approximately 15 miles long. Three segments of the ditch are present within the APE (see Figures 3.15-32 and -33). Segment 5LR.8928.1 of the Farmers' Ditch crosses 1-25 parallel to US 34 in the vicinity of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. Here, the earthen canal is approximately 16 feet wide and 1.5 miles long. The levees and banks along both sides of the ditch are grass-covered. The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Segment 5LR.8928.2 is the portion of the irrigation ditch west of 1-25 and within the northeast quadrant of the interchange to where Farmers' Ditch crosses US 34. The ditch has been lined with concrete, realigned and modified by commercial development and the construction of 1-25 and US 34. The segment is 1.8 miles long. Segment 5LR.8928.7 of the historic Farmers' Ditch generally runs perpendicular to 1-25 and crosses the proposed Package A commuter railway alignment. The earthen ditch is 151 feet long and 9 feet wide. Grassy vegetation lines both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928) is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.7 retain visual and structural integrity within a semi-rural setting, and both segments support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5LR.8928.2 of Farmers' Ditch has been modified to the • point that its remaining features no longer support the eligibility of the entire resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928). Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.1 — Package A: Under Package A, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a CBC would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 3.15-34 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary impacts to the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.1 — Package B: Under Package B, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a CBC would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 3.15-34 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction impacts would be the same as those for Package A. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.1 — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a CBC would be conveyed an • additional 78 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overlay the ditch culvert. Figure 3.15-35 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Historic Preservation 3.15-65 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary impacts to the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.2— Package A: The Farmers' Ditch segment 5LR.8928.2 runs parallel to the north side of US 34 until it reaches the west frontage road of 1-25 where it flanks the north side of that roadway as an open ditch for several hundred feet. The ditch enters a pipe where it crosses underneath the west frontage road, 1-25, and 1-25 ramps. The ditch remains underground, inside a culvert pipe, until it daylights at the east frontage road. Under the Package A improvements, direct impacts to the ditch would occur in four places along this ditch segment. Direct impact would occur at two locations on the west side of 1-25 where this historic ditch parallels the north side of US 34. Approximately 1,225 feet of open ditch west of, and an 1,090-foot-long stretch of open ditch east of Rocky Mountain Avenue, lies within the proposed wider US 34 roadway template. The open ditch would be encased inside an underground pipe to allow construction of the wider pavement and side slope. Two direct impacts would occur on the east side of 1-25. These include a 115-foot-long portion of open ditch on the northeast quadrant of the 1-25/US 34 interchange, which would require the ditch to be encased inside a culvert beneath the proposed new northbound 1-25 on-ramps. A short distance farther to the east, the same ditch flows under US 34 inside a CBC. Proposed widening of the US 34 roadway in this location would require culvert extensions of approximately 44 feet on the north side of US 34 and 65 feet on the south side (5LR.8928.1) of US 34, totaling 109 feet more open ditch that would be conveyed inside a concrete culvert • (see Figure 3.15-34). Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary impacts to the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.2— Package B: Package B improvements to the 1-25 /US 34 interchange as well as US 34 and the Rocky Mountain Avenue intersection would result in very similar direct impacts to the historic Farmers' Ditch as Package A (see Figure 3.15-34). Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.2 — Preferred Alternative: The Farmers' Ditch segment 5LR.8928.2 runs parallel to the north side of US 34 until it reaches the west frontage road of 1-25 where it flanks the north side of that roadway as an open ditch for several hundred feet. The ditch enters a pipe where it crosses underneath the west frontage road, 1-25, and 1-25 ramps. The ditch remains underground, inside a culvert pipe, until it daylights at the east frontage road. Under the Preferred Alternative improvements, direct impacts to the ditch would occur in four places along this ditch segment. Direct impact would occur at two locations on the west side of I-25where this historic ditch parallels the north side of US 34. Approximately 1,225 feet of open ditch west of, and a 1,090-foot-long stretch of open ditch east of Rocky Mountain Avenue, lies within the proposed wider US 34 roadway template. The open ditch would be encased inside an underground pipe to allow construction of the wider pavement and side slope. • Historic Preservation 3.15-66 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Two direct impacts would occur on the east side of 1-25. These include a 95-foot-long portion of open ditch on the northeast quadrant of the I-25/US 34 interchange, which would require the ditch to be encased inside a culvert beneath the proposed new northbound 1-25 on-ramps. A short distance farther to the east, the same ditch flows under US 34 inside a CBC. Proposed widening of the US 34 roadway in this location would require culvert extensions of approximately 44 feet on the north side of US 34 and 78 feet on the south side (5LR.8928.1) of US 34, totaling 109 feet more open ditch that would be conveyed inside a concrete culvert (see Figure 3.15-35). Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary impacts to the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.7—Package A: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Impacts to segment 5LR.8928.7— Preferred Alternative: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements under the Preferred Alternative would cause changes to this historic property. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: Ditch segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 would experience temporary construction impacts during culvert installation and highway construction activity. The direct impacts to these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,539 linear feet or 0.48 mile of open • ditch requiring placement inside underground pipes and box culvert extensions. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment in much of the 1-25 /US 34 interchange area has already been compromised by numerous culvert installations, realignments and other modifications and no longer supports the qualities that make the entire ditch NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928). Package B: The proposed transportation improvements would result in temporary and direct impacts identical to those associated with Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B transportation improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928). Preferred Alternative: Ditch segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 would experience temporary construction impacts during culvert installation and highway construction activity. The direct impacts to these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,532 linear feet or 0.48 mile of open ditch requiring placement inside underground pipes and box culvert extensions. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment in much of the 1-25/US 34 interchange area has already been compromised by numerous culvert installations, realignments and other modifications and no longer supports the qualities that make the entire ditch NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers' Ditch (5LR.8928). • Historic Preservation 3.15-67 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-32 5LR.8928 (Farmers' Ditch) — Segments intersecting the project APE • � � f - - -- , G LEGEND 1 - * Historic Ditches `• /• !• Wellnrglon • /�/ Study Corridors , .•`-• 85 /./ Highways 287 r -: ;\/ Arterial Roads iv �\. i i r;(.e[e 1_-___i Regional Study Area \ City Boundaries I Fort Collins h2 . Ault 14 J a Cities & Towns in Project Area i 1257, rrnatn .. Ealo, Sever a,ce I. 5LR.8928.2 ' 287 = 9W ny u�_ '� '39Z lucerne ; 1 • Greeley 134 - t_ Loveland . ..! ;1 I 34 ,� 5LR.8928.7 I / ---- 5LR.8928.1 =..,, i j �. , . . / nncw.i l Jchnstwm i 85 i ictw:I alWW1t_ _56_ i• I ' Gilaest / i . III A / mean r(et..,,::. _ ____ _ .___ __ _ _ _ _ _ I I onyrnont i I • I. / voui' f o j 'r • / 0 Firestone Nbwet çz •Fat Lupton )2" Ixathirrel i 1 p % I ' we I o 6 Watterbec :.A _ ( Boulder .'�' NW , I:rayetr, i lw�svJle �' t\ _�, Bi9trm � ,. 7 . n \Th \`• \ / / 36 287 i , / 0 I,r.,:e., ; i i. r , Denver WIDe N3/4• /:------9. / „_---- 0 2 4 6 8 10 \ ,„:41, /N.....\ .�` f I I IJ I� Miles North v III Historic Preservation 3.15-68 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. IIFigure 3.15-33 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch) — Location Map LEGEND :i 4.. . . a .... 4 , / !, Historical Resources ►.� Package A Resource Impact 377 Package A ROW Boundary . J! l..�_; i `� s 5LR 8928 1 8 5LR 8928 2 Boundaries _ Location Map Boundary —u Bridge i Culvert r►.-- • I 'i Roadway Features F. Retaining Wall __1 _ - __ 5LR.8928.2 - Parcel Boundaries �,a, Guardrails iiri ilir i f i . , _ ilea :D. 11 ril: : I • . : . , : i ' as' - I I I I 4 „ • „ ft -Ir , - 3 ' '4' if.0\K. terr- -1 �'• zie 4........-0-.. . fl I i f III - i \ e , .i I Is � \ r . ........ 34 -4 , tit } 11 0 i I = x }_ 1.-_,tilil rn kiii i i --- f• in j , , L :r . I _ 4 0 -,-.. . -. - .... ..• . . . • - - .. I • A r Q L Location Map • 0 700 V .,1 _ �._ ..�._. �.. I r t Feet North E LCR 20E.,-_ � f-- . - � �"�. � 1�. t ID Historic Preservation 3.15-69 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-34 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch) — Packages A and B 0 LEGEND Historical Resources "a' .. Package A Resource Impact IS 7 - Package A ROW Boundary '' 115 Linear Feet Impacted t , 5LR.8928.1 Property Boundary . .I . Package A EOP F,♦ Bridge /Culvert m -• Roadway Features II—. Retaining Vital) ' , `' 1 44 Linear Feet Impacted rt• i Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails ,y e - `y, i A. - 43/4 kuits... .H. \kb li , i IL 4 , ar7134 w - 7--- y ^ er r - AID f ' ..._* Str w r _.° 65 Linear Feet Impacted I I C ' : • 4 JAMS4 NI v • - a. Se l - 1' ._ : ~ • - 1,225 Linear Feet Impacted *s ' ..z ceil .....s. sae i 4. rii , , t . .., _ i _ lob, fe• I ! . '" ., 7gliall\i = I es I i r i - 34 i -- 1 a titio so lir 1 j x gee — ,• ..r Vkl 1090 Linear Feet Impacted --4. r -- •' I s \ r - L .- Ifji 41 i ) j M _ ._ - - Location Map r . ._ - - — —a—___ 34 0 300 - ..• ImIEJ I Feet North - - all — la. -- - _ - _ Historic Preservation 3.15-70 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.15-35 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 (Farmers' Ditch) — Preferred Alternative A v a seal -- is rOe e s e e.a . It all/ le e . -- -- 1 r - - , _ ,, I A LEGEND itlik . } w Historical Resources k - . - • , Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ti Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary - 95 Linear Feet Impacted 1 , 5LR.8928.1 & 5LR.8928.2 Boundaries * , \ Preferred Alternative P )t Fi Bridge /Culvert \ ; EOP Roadway Features ...AN Retaining VVall y 1 1; . I •Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails \ it. `\ •, k 'T•, % _ _ . '& ... - i 44 Linear Feet Impacted: '`, .. .i \'NN':1, i i;D:eter , I 5 4 ' _ t _ z....,....... -_. __ _ I t V Al I i a ter: illii rummi . �miatudaryishTh . N villesrf 78 Lin7 ear Feet Impacted • ��, l . N it'i'lli\i" y — Ill ,fr\ , . , ., r r ontik , p. lioioi•1lLt . ' ., f ' 0 ' ''.- r • r 1,225 Linear Feet Impacted r - r'j .s t il'1. 1 ,, va a , j '. !/ -N\ Ilit: kIrs I + % -. ,� � . : — -_: - _ 17 II —":1;ti" li =iiiLMSASE341 —- -'-4.4 Ett— ca i • a s • a • ! ■ a < ca ii dr C.te. 7,.. 1 - . - - - - r ' r ' ..- e • L . t. �. r.. r'. —1 Ili i rf ,� 44,�" a►. " = 1,090 Linear Feet Impacted F t . ' - t : „,„, • . r• t ' , s r, eil I . -B - �' :.__rL�\ r _ _` - —i »•e — a —r Se Alva - . Location Map I _. - P.:11 i 4nei►414.. -- . " � 0 300 S IIMMIll 34 - _ Feet North ' ' 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-71 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation • 5LR. 11209 (Schmer Farm) Resource Description : The Schmer Farm is located at 5464 East US 34 on • the southwest corner of 1-25 and US ` • 34. Dating to the early 1900s, the farm AO Li =' • `�1�; k '3 S . A remains a fairly complete example of a � �:? � �'* � _ Larimer County farm from that time '? - period . The farm continues to have a ma-teir -- _ land base, and it is still currently used :► tli ' `- for farming. At one time, it was used for - - - growing of sugar beets but now it is _. � -- used for growing corn and grains. The -- original size of the farm was 160 acres. Schmer Farm The farm's size has been reduced 25 percent from the original 160 acres and is currently 119.5 acres. Twenty-eight acres at the northeast corner of the property were sold by the owners in 1962 for commercial development at the 1-25 entry ramp from US 34 and another twelve acres have been sold since that time. Eligibility Determination : On August 17, 2006, CDOT determined, and the SHPO concurred , that the Schmer Farm was officially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with 20th century farming , including sugar beet growing. It is also eligible under Criterion C as representative of the architecture typically associated with Loveland and Larimer County farms during the first half of the 20th century. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic farm would be directly impacted by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package A. Direct impacts to the site would result from the construction of new interchange ramps, including long curving, elevated ramps from westbound US 34 to southbound 1-25, and a new southbound on-ramp from eastbound US 34 on the southwest quadrant of the interchange, replacing the existing loop ramp. Land taken from the farm would be necessary to provide a foundation for support piers for the new elevated flyover ramps between US 34 and 1-25. Additionally, land would be needed from the farm to allow construction of fill slopes used to support the widened highway lanes and near-grade ramps, located just west of the existing southbound on-ramp. Construction of these new ramps would create direct impacts to as many as 5.09 acres of land along the east edge of the property. Another small area of direct impact would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station , and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange. A total of 1 . 52 acres of farmland would be directly impacted in this location . The combined 6.61 acres of open farmland subject to direct impacts under Package A amounts to approximately 5.3 percent of the total 124-acre occupied by this historic farm . No direct impacts to the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under Package A (see Figure 3. 15-36). Under Package Al traffic noise is expected to decrease approximately four decibels from the No- Action Alternative levels in the vicinity of the Schmer farmhouse due to shielding of highway traffic noise by the new on-ramp in the 1-25 interchange. The on-ramp which brings westbound US 34 traffic directly to southbound 1-25 is elevated 30 feet higher than the existing highway feature in the area and introduces an additional transportation element into the setting of the Schmer Farm. Transportation features have been part of the rural atmosphere and setting of the Schmer Farm since the 1960s, when 1-25 and US 34 were completed . Historic Preservation 3.15-72 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-36 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm) — Package A__3,.. timiiiti i , . 1 ' F”,„..-,7,--,-til in, 1 ', iv , )LEGEND �, � •' I i ` Historical Resources • �` , l i 1 I‘ ., i 4 , I ` Package A Resource Impact , , ita it 1 Package A ROW Boundary -`�- . i 5LR.11209 Property Boundary l �� Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails L,,r. \ Roadway Features ♦•••t Retaining Wall _ "� j —Ia. - ii Parcel Boundaries " Guar dra ils . A ; 1W ti i __ . _ pi, .... _ . ii I .. : - Al' " - • 1 / • 1 '` ilk %'' - =_-- �- _;-' � _-._ - _--__� i - - - _- - .� - - = _ - = - --� x• 34 -tea - . f r i I so- " i I f' *i labs \ 4%7dArea = 66,341Sq. Ft Acres = 1 .52 e all I1 I , � , ,i• Il I !i I � a . . � I ttit.. _pia sss i ti Area = 221,661 Sq. Ft �'' l r , �'>b Acres =5.09 �.2 .�1 i / 'IMFI4 l •• .ur � '/ Indirect effect to farm setting caused - by elevated ramp structures. ' ' e f Ramps would be at least 30 feet ft 0 ,��: higher than existing roadways. ISi ri 1 se l�lbr. '� may• ti . af� _r - 1 Location Map„: s • 4 11T't�t'� i I O - - --- ic - • E LCR 20E Ili.l� -- .,lll.- 400 ® I ' . et I �� Feet North i w l I�111 - .kr \. �1I I L,� I I Historic Preservation 3.15-73 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The new indirect effects to the farm setting would not substantially impair the function, setting, or architectural qualities that render the farm NRHP-eligible. The farm would remain operational and would be protected from encroachment during construction. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. The transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Impacts from Package B are similar in nature to those expected under Package A. This historic farm would be directly impacted by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package B. Direct impacts to the site would be slightly larger than in Package A due to the additional managed lanes on 1-25 creating a slightly wider highway footprint. Construction of these new ramps would cause direct impacts to as many as 5.48 acres of land along the east edge of the property. Another small area of direct impact would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station, and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange. A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be directly impacted in this location. The combined 7.0 acres of open farmland subject to direct impacts under Package B amounts to approximately 5.6 percent of the total 124 acres occupied by this historic farm. Indirect effects would be the same as for Package A (see Figure 3.15-37). Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features • associated with the farm. The transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: This historic farm would be directly impacted by proposed improvements to the 1-25/US 34 interchange associated with the Preferred Alternative. Direct impacts to the site would result from the construction of new interchange ramps, including long curving, elevated ramps from westbound US 34 to southbound 1-25, and a new southbound on-ramp from eastbound US 34 on the southwest quadrant of the interchange, replacing the existing loop ramp. Land taken from the farm would be necessary to provide a foundation for support piers for the new elevated flyover ramps between US 34 and 1-25. Additionally, land would be needed from the farm to allow construction of fill slopes used to support the widened highway lanes and near-grade ramps, located just west of the existing southbound on-ramp. Construction of these new ramps would create direct impacts to as many as 3.86 acres of land along the east edge of the property. One of the new elevated westbound US 34 to southbound 1-25 ramp would begin on US 34 slightly east of the current 1-25 interchange. The ramp would rise to a height of approximately 63 feet over 1-25 and curve to the southwest on an alignment slightly west of existing 1-25. The curve will begin to encroach on the Schmer farmland at a point approximately 700 feet south of the centerline of US 34 which is approximately 200 feet south and 1100 feet east of the existing farm buildings. The existing commercial development of a hotel, restaurant and gas station separates the farm property from this ramp at the northeast corner of the farm. As the • elevated ramp gradually curves into southbound 1-25 it would attain a height of 60 feet due east of the farm buildings and would be at a height of approximately 30 feet above ground and Historic Preservation 3.15-74 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. supported on retaining walls when it is approximately 1200 feet southeast of the farm buildings. The ramp would be below ground level near Larimer County Road 20E at the south boundary of the Schmer Farm. Another new elevated ramp would bring northbound traffic from 1-25 to westbound US 34. This ramp would be built on the east side of 1-25 and would not be adjacent to the Schmer farm but would elevate to height of approximately 40 feet due east of the farm. The ramp would be located about 150 feet north of the farm. Two retaining walls would be built adjacent to the Schmer Farm. One retaining wall would be located on the east side of the farm extending along the ramp described above. The wall would not extend above the existing farmland at the south boundary of the farm. It would then rise to a height of 30 feet midway between the north and south boundaries of the farm. From that point, the ramp would be a bridge and not supported by retaining walls. The other retaining wall would be located along most of the north border of the farm on the south side of US 34. This wall woukld be approximately 70 feet from the existing farm house and would extend approximately 1300 feet. It would be at a height of approximately four feet directly in front of the existing farm house and at heights ranging from four to nine feet in other segments of the wall. Both of these ramps would result in indirect effects as new elevated structures introduced into the visual element of the Schmer farm. The retaining walls under the ramp and along the north side of the property are similar visual indirect effects. • Another new ramp would be built on the east side of 1-25 that would carry northbound 1-25 traffic to eastbound US 34 traffic. This additional new ramp would be located on the east side of 1-25 and not elevated, it is not expected to effect any elements of the Schmer farm as it is. Another small area of direct impact would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station, and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange. A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be directly impacted in this location. The combined 5.38 acres of open farmland subject to direct impacts under Preferred Alternative amounts to approximately 4.3 percent of the total 124 acres occupied by this historic farm. No direct impacts to the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3.15-38). The grade of US 34 directly in front of the house would be three feet higher than the current grade of US 34. The grade of 1-25 on the east would be between 5 to 15 feet below existing ground. Guidelines for assessing historic integrity of agricultural properties are set forth in the National Register Bulletin, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes", U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. According to those guidelines, "historic integrity requires that the various characteristics that shaped the land during the historic periods be present today in much the same way they were historically (page 21)." The integrity of the agricultural setting of the Schmer farm was first compromised in the 1960s when 1-25 was built adjacent to its eastern border. The subsequent development of a hotel and gas station on the property's northeast corner during the early 1970s resulted in a direct loss to the farm site's integrity. The losses of integrity associated with the development of the highway and the associated commercial development at the US 34/ 1-25 interchange have occurred • over 40 years ago. Those impacts were evident when the property was determined eligible for Historic Preservation 3.15-75 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • the NRHP in 2006. In spite of the loss of these agricultural components, the farm buildings and remaining farm land still had enough integrity to convey significance in 2006 when the farm was determined eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. The production of sugar beets was the main reason the Schmer Farm and many others in northern Colorado developed and this association is an important part of its agricultural history. Sugar beet production in Larimer County started in 1901 with the opening of Great Western's first sugar beet processing facility in northern Colorado at Loveland. Sugar beet production in northern Colorado was strong for over 80 years, but declined significantly after the closure of the Great Western sugar plants in 1985. Since that time, much of the farmland in northern Colorado has been used to produce other crops. The Schmer farm has been producing corn and grains. The continued association of the Schmer farm with the sugar beet industry was lost in the mid-1980s when the Great Western sugar plants closed. In order for farms to continue their existence, they had to make modifications to adjust to many changing factors including weather, the agricultural markets and changes in surrounding land use. The Schmer Farm, like most others, has undertaken many modifications to keep it in operation over the decades. Specifically, the Schmer Farm has changed the crops it produces and has sold off part of the land for commercial development in order to infuse cash to keep the farm viable. Because of these modifications over the decades, the farm still continues in production and is able to convey significance under Criteria A and C. The impacts associated with this project would occur along the eastern edge of the farm adjacent to 1-25 where the original integrity of the farm was compromised with the highway's intrusion on the visual landscape some 40 years ago and where a portion of the land was • developed in the 1960s. There would be no materially different visual perception of the farm from this project. The farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the farm would continue to convey significance in terms of its association with agricultural development in Larimer County. The farm would continue on as it was in 2006, when determined eligible for the NRHP, except for the removal of 5.38 acres for the Preferred Alternative in a thin strip of land along portions of the north and east borders of the farm as shown on Figure 3.15-38. In recent growing seasons, the Schmer farm land was planted with about half the acreage in corn and the other half in grain. The land was planted to the edge of their property which abuts the 1-25 ROW on the east and the US 34 ROW on the north. All of the 5.38 acres that are to be taken for the Preferred Alternative are currently used as agricultural land. The northern portion of the take strip on the east edge of the property has recently been planted in corn. The remainder of the agricultural land that would be taken has been planted in grains. In spite of a loss of these 5.38 acres of land for the improvement of 1-25, the Schmer Farm would still continue on as a working farm as it has since the loss of a market for sugar beets and as it has since selling off part of its land for commercial development. It would remain a working farm that conveys significance under Criteria A and C. • Historic Preservation 3.15-76 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-37 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm) — Package B s �` i f - �. I 1 I b LEGEND a+ • 1 I I i i ' 1r +fir Historical Resources S� = I �r t , III �I r I , II - Package B Resource Impact N • tilt Package B ROW Boundary f ' 7 . _ ' iv ` ;4v; ' ) ' '+I 15LR.11209 Property Boundary ?4ste ,' t Package B EOP H Budge Guardrails ;�� _10,7 r I " Roadway Features IFS Retaining Wall . tit tit •' '- .. _ Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails fa •tr - •+ -- ¢ • I I p \ 1:s i ....."‘k �' t- -"~ it , I I I.I , � r ll 1� • 1 ` 4 - . . -.ejj " � - -z sue=-- _ _ ` _ -_-_—... ...-77-7.-- --7-_- - - Al --- - - — _ _ _-__ _=� ..7%.....7 34 jffi #i ‘ N91I I ). 1 I I ri 1 7. __. _ 4:47-. il -, .1 # ;/' '''' -, ' ' I I It i !ira „ tan \tIlp I li i Area = 66,302 Sq. Ft I ,iii , ' Acres = 1 .52 I 1 , ;1 �� 1 ' A III ICI 1 I 1 VIII Il ,r I I II � ► Ili I1 II I II I I i II III I ' ! III . II I' Area = 238,569 Sq. Ft I. I I r 1 , �._ Acres =5.48 I ' 1 . . I1 r1 eles 't'INT �, y ,i`. Ill r 1II �,., , I •1 pI .1 i is I ' i �1 -1 - "II( Indirect effect to farm setting caused h I 1 ; , � r i � Icc � ' . elevated ramp structures. �i +. � ' Y , d1. Ramps would be at least 30 feet higher I i I j I. I than existing roadways. I .. El I► 1 , Location Map • I 1�I I ' 1 I I 'r l w_ r ,7., ��_,_ �E LC R 20E' '11HI�'�II II400 /\ - -laarl l Feet North �k . .. - , N� �/� x :' • Ll! !Ilk lu 1�1 ii 1 Historic Preservation 3.15-77 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.15-37 5LR.11209 (Schmer Farm) — Package B .^ . -- jj3 cam .LEGEND 1 1!► I II or , y, i, i• 1 iii Historical Resources �; ,. ,- i I 'il. ,....w.4 Package B Resource Impact x •,.- 4 i Package B ROW Boundary• p - ~ .` r . »ti="lr�iL.: , ' SLR.11209 Property Boundary ' �' c ' it Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails � � (� . :'z _ III \ II n Roadway Features .�. Retaining (Mall ' - i MIParcel Boundaries L� Guardrails 'i �"' II � Ikc. -4* _,-----a-,-„..._ tow i . s N1 " �. : if Ill !t • l� r_ \ IIi ii II r . • - a 1. ,- '--�.. Yln — iris iI I f a 11� Ali Area = 66,302 Sq. Ft if i , -ij II Acres = 1 .52 I ID • illy I lI ' \ ft I ' ll i� 1'il i ' ' � I ii I 1 1 . PI ii ill ) ,� � " I � 1 I Area = 238,569 Sq. Ft I, ! + ; .1 ' i Acres =5.48 (II � ; liLt ;cif ,i I I r�l ' r = I 01 ' I " i I ,i I I Indirect effect to farm setting caused by I • T elevated ramp structures. I ` "" I Ramps would be at least 30 feet higher I ` I 11 ,, 4Y i ! than existing roadways. Iii 5l II I it Location Map J 400 EiLCR;20E , IP III f� fl Feet a ortn ! 11 im ■AI • to 111 Ii ll" 11111 , Historic Preservation 3.15-77 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Under the Preferred Alternative, traffic noise is expected to decrease approximately ten decibels from the No-Action Alternative levels in the vicinity of the Schmer farmhouse due to shielding of highway traffic noise by the new on-ramp in the 1-25 interchange. The on-ramp which brings westbound US 34 traffic directly to southbound 1-25 is elevated 30 feet higher than the existing highway feature in the area and introduces an additional transportation element into the setting of the Schmer Farm. Transportation features have been part of the rural atmosphere and setting of the Schmer Farm since the 1960s, when 1-25 and US 34 were completed. The new indirect effects to the farm setting would not substantially impair the function, setting, or architectural qualities that render the farm NRHP-eligible. The farm would remain operational and would be protected from encroachment during construction. The character of this area has changed drastically over the past two decades. The area is now mainly characterized by urban commercial development. The changes to the I-25/US 34 interchange as a result of this project will not be the driving force for indirect or cumulative effects in this area. These indirect impacts are not the kind that would not have occurred but for this proposed project. The change from predominantly agriculture to predominately commercial development has already occurred. There has been an interstate interchange providing access to this area for about 50 years. This change in land use has occurred over many decades with most of the change occurring in the last two decades. The visual representations presented on the following two pages illustrate the existing setting of the farm and the change with the Preferred Alternative. • FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the loss of an additional 5.38 acres of land for construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to this farm because the characteristics that define the integrity of the rural landscape would not be compromised. The location, design, materials and workmanship of the farm would remain the same. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any of the farm buildings. The setting would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative. The mountains to the west of the farm continue to be a key element of its historic setting. The setting of the land to the north of the Schmer farm has changed significantly. What was once all agricultural land has been developed over the last decades into commercial development with the Loveland Outlet Stores and other retail businesses directly north of the Schmer Farm and the large Promenade Shops at Centerra to the northeast of the farm. The highways on both the north and east have been there for over forty years and were a part of the setting when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP. The feeling would remain one of an active farm established in the early part of the 20th century. The association is still strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. The Schmer Farm was determined eligible under Criterion A for its association with 20th century Loveland area farming, including its history of sugar beet growing. That association would not change as a result of this project. • Historic Preservation 3.15-79 0 O A ie., ... 0 . / N . .,, , .. . i „ ...... . , .. ,... .. . if . Mr ' ': 1" - - ' '. ' . I I l: .2 li al II P ,r-- i : ' 1 ' '- - G.L. o w j. r — w ZL., • f•ii:‘,.. 4' - • t' i _ 2 m �. O 'i ., l • c 'h, r t: :t. • • /1 1 t Q � _ >• � 0 Z I ., ?_ • co 1 Y 2 0 o 4 i • . n •.1l, . i„... . t ... , <1:DE • in b, it me MO '� 0 RS III _ .4 1 — Q CO) r L y y• Q .-1=t CO W I _" s\1 U) �4 Y Icy C r y n (A ft -. J., 1 Q 1 ',Ate,A e .1 • L (n c ;. • ' �• -C Si r zr e • t 0) - ..Y _ i �.. • - i zM O .�._ 0 . N'Si° - _ r. E ir !!``�� ` `/� _ ...._=__ . /� II- �- - --•�_'__ L- W (n -_ a - E 0 O 75 I- 0 a -- rf C cU C O N i—i cu W o ;� IV' p H ( • . ' ", 1 1p G+r 0 r• ! , ♦y� O A.�.. \nom ti �^..S.` `♦ - • CD 1 7 W A ii MAI% Cl) 410 E V 1rCY) -4(" �Y. cu L. liWp ��e J - a. - - _ Sietr . ISs T -O ,+, tie♦tf � • 4` . •. . . • t .. _ .... .. ...... it,* . , . . . . . ,.. . . . , L_ L._ • ..„, ,. . _ - , RI CD co . .�1 11 0 - I)O ' Iri • ..._, O ■II _. 4_, 5 a Illl ..i - C) w O ets CIZI �,m r - ci—li; C) r f W L ` '. 1� O) + 1 d C ` a en i . '' Q- L. xal cn itcs) ., 03 EC cn CJ u) 4 3 o cn CD RI a) 1. iMID' , i te. - cn co a r • r — C _0 _ p O 1 — (B ;} 3 3 U • � ..� > I I 1 I ■ I C D 013 R3 o L CD L-- a) U E E ca 0 O C CD rU) r 0 (n N W N it O, Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 5LR.11210 (McDonough Farm) Resource Description: This property is located east of Loveland on the south side of US 34 approximately one mile west of 1-25. The farm is historically important because of the architectural significance of its barn. The barn is a good example of early 20th century barn architecture in the Loveland and Larimer County area. The farm still continues in production and the barn continues to convey significance under Criterion C. Eligibility Determination: In August 2006, the McDonough Farm was determined officially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion C because of the architectural significance of its barn. Effect Determination — Package A: The impacts associated with Package A would occur along the northern edge of the farm adjacent to US 34 where 1.64 acres would be removed in a thin strip of land along portions of the north and east borders of the farm. It appears that a pumphouse adjacent to US 34 would be removed. On the 2006 survey of this property, the pumphouse was evaluated as not unique, utilitarian in nature, and not adequately representing the architecture typically associated with Loveland area farms during the first half of the 20th century. This farm would remain a working farm whose barn conveys significance under Criterion C. The barn and other farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the barn would continue to convey architectural significance. The material, workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not be affected by a loss of land from the site. Due to the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse • effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: The impacts associated with Package B are identical to those described under Package A. This farm would remain a working farm whose barn conveys significance under Criterion C. The barn and other farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the barn would continue to convey architectural significance. The material, workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not be affected by a loss of land from the site. Due to the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: The impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur along the northern edge of the farm adjacent to US 34 where 1.64 acres would be removed in a thin strip of land along portions of the north and east borders of the farm (see Figure 3.15-39). It appears that a pumphouse adjacent to US 34 would be removed. On the 2006 survey of this property, the pumphouse was evaluated as not unique, utilitarian in nature, and not adequately representing the architecture typically associated with Loveland area farms during the first half of the 20th century. This farm would remain a working farm whose barn conveys significance under Criterion C. The barn and other farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the barn would continue to convey architectural significance. The material, workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not be affected by a loss of land from the site. Due to the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result • in no adverse effect to the resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-82 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIII Figure 3.15-39 5LR.11210 (McDonough Farm) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND Historical Resources �" • . '4,14,.,.' ::::::: ::;:::zct tStlala -0 5LR.11210 Property Boundary '� Tr _on___-Y, —see, i • Preferred Alternative --i : EOP II— Bridge Guardrails ; F hims i Roadway Features ♦—. Retaining Wall S • ■ tt1 II C Parcel Boundaries `_A Guardrailsiki tinil • iii) � ' It . • I 1 _ !! � f CVs .1-. '��r. _ - _ 1ut/i + I Ca' . ve _ .: .,.,... ,. . . .. ; pms, , •11pQI • iIt 3 li • at pt 'T. � . • ;.4 E 0 y,; ,1 A Area = 71 ,505 Sq. Ft V , I Acres = 1 .64 Acres i • • I ,l L28-.- •-f--- * cam; r---- I . 'Iii, _, N. % 1 Ites hi R 20E M �, i •_ • $ 4. s- Location Map ` � • • i'3 ebi. • N] 1 , 400q. "a.`' - >R I • _t l Feet IIIINorth j • . . . x.. ... . . .. . . . , . Historic Preservation 3.15-83 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514 (Great Western Railway) Resource Description: The total length of the entire historic Great Western Railway (GWR) is 110 miles. Six segments of the GWR resource in Larimer, Weld, and Boulder counties pass through the North 1-25 Draft EIS APE (see Figure 3.15-40). The 15.7 mile-long GWR Loveland to Buda section (5LR850) was built in 1902-03 by the Loveland Construction Company and contains Larimer County segments 5LR.850.1 and 5LR.850.5 as well as Weld County segment 5WL.841.11. Segment 5LR.850.1 is approximately 1,241 feet long. The GWR is conveyed over 1-25 in this portion of the APE by a non-historic bridge. Segment 5LR.850.5 is approximately 551 feet long. Segment 5WL.841.11 is the first end-of-track point for the Loveland to Buda section, and the portion within the project APE is 784 feet long. The GWR Johnstown to Liberty section was built in 1905-1906 and is 12 miles long. Within the APE in Weld and Boulder Counties this section contains segments 5WL.841.9 and 5BL.841.1. Segment 5WL.841.9 is 1,241 feet long, and segment 5WL.841.1 is 784 feet in length. The Boulder County segment (5BL.514.1) of the GWR Johnstown to Longmont section was constructed in 1903, and is approximately 2.1 miles long. Eligibility Determination: The entire GWR, in Larimer County (5LR.850), Weld County (5WL841), and Boulder County (5BL.514), is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the economic development of the Colorado Front Range. All of the segments passing through the APE (5LR.850.1, 5LR.850.5, 5WL.841.11, 5WL.841.9, 5WL.841.1 and 5BL.514.1) retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the • eligibility of the entire linear resource; however, those portions of the railroad spanning 1-25 have been modified and have lost integrity of design and workmanship by being placed on a bridge during the 1960s. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire GWR (5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514). Impacts to segment 5LR.850.1 — Package A: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a non-historic 210-foot-long steel girder railroad bridge. Package A involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction or a total of six traffic lanes. To accommodate this wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over 1-25 with a 295-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 85 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge (see Figure 3.15-41). • Historic Preservation 3.15-84 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 3.1540 5LR.850, 5WL.841, 5BL.514 (Great Western Railway) - Segments Intersecting Project APE LEGEND I /\/ Historic Railroads and Ditches -- - A/ Study Corridors k •� 1 ""�'to •� •-N, "/ 85/ Highways - f! •\ "/ Arterial Roads -r cal Regional Study Area i • `\ City Boundaries = Fort Collins ` t a Cities & Towns in Project Area i a,t ' L i 2 . \ I . Tinnath 4 Eat , Sciaance I 287 I 5LR.850.5 _ i,Yr�f�: 392 i 1 1 Greeley %, 34 H ove e % 263 i Lland i 34 i 5LR.850.1 Env,- / t Lis), ; Campos L. . .j, a� F. � _ 85 / E;etro,d 5WL.841 . 11 i 0 . i k3/4,201---,15WL.841.9 ri s - i 66 . . - -_ - u .. I I ' I onyrrudtt As i 15BL.514.1 '""' s I f Voluny O , I / h,estcrw , 7 PSwot O Fredeict I r7----- "es."/ �1Jltklfff' 1 v I6 I vvatt�,t>�; I Boulder 7 i ` at rr,tlr14" � il at t .u..•..dl• v - BigMon Alp.' " fi2 \ . / • uaxnc,ela . ' 93 '� N.- ,,,,.,nn � \- 1`�36 297a n:,'.t.t1 t � f V . T firi----- . ' Denver—• era ® V i `� t 0 2 4 6 8 10 4‘.\/ 6....i- - , r t I Mlles North k CI 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-85 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.1541 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway) — Package A ill LEGEND ! ! d Historical Resources ti I, : Package A Resource Impact e t j Package A ROW Boundary R; 5LR.850.1 Property Boundary 1 i ' l '' Q Package A EOP tIH Bridge /CuNeit 1 25 Roadway Features •-. Retaining Wall I l 1 = Parcel Boundaries A,. ..s Guardrails i .97 • r - • •. . r _77c-- , • - - '. ' 1 y Location of existing bridges I 14 I l _ . - A sinse e RI i : . nail, F-a t-- i ` "elit i -il I 1411 0 LCR'20E 't • 7 �E• • .. Iasi �•RAJ p ,r a � - - ate• _ •. . 'L � •- II ifp, ii I - i 85 Linear Feet Impacted 85 Linear Feet Impacted • 6,141- t . ? ,•L ,�. C M 1 , v, i�/ 1 1 r I I . - 1 �- ,.. . I � : i * t - '-"I I 1 New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the _l=� r/ -- railway. f-i ,/ To construct the new bridges, a "shoo-fly" structure , _ I i would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the y • ; `' • 1s I • . north side of the exsting bridges. �i� to , i` ' 1 I `; - The track impacted by this shoo-fly are indicated in red. er i F'. I. I , I Fr 0. • , • , . \:41,,, .k ..::1Leir, 114 i - 4 t. r► • I Location Map: . r. rl ---1 - 1' 1 - 0 200 ® I Feet North { `� t� 0 Historic Preservation 3.15.86 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation transportation. In order to replace the existing bridge with a longer structure, it would be necessary to construct a temporary "shoo-fly" structure, whereby a section of railroad would be temporarily re-aligned to cross 1-25 on the north side of the existing railroad bridge. This measure would prevent a disruption in rail service, while the old bridge is demolished and the new bridge structure is being constructed in its place. A new rail crossing would be constructed north of the existing bridge. The shoo-fly structure would require altering the existing historic railroad grade at either end of the existing bridge (approximately 85 feet at each end to provide a smooth transition to the new alignment), curving to form the bypass of the existing bridge. Once the latter step has been completed, the shoo-fly would be removed, and rail traffic would be restored to its historic east-west alignment. The bridge replacement under Package A would place an additional 85 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of 1-25 on a bridge, only 85 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans 1-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5LR.850.1 —Package B: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a (non-historic) 210-foot-long steel girder railroad bridge. Package B involves widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two • southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. To accommodate this much wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over 1-25 with a 330-foot- long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 120 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge. Similar to Package A, construction of a shoo-fly would be needed during construction (see Figure 3.15-42). The bridge replacement under Package B would place an additional 120 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure relatively similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of 1-25 on a bridge, only 120 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans 1-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP • Historic Preservation 3.15-87 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-42 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway) — Package B 0 r LEGEND i t: iiii Historical Resources I Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 441 . 5LR.850.1 Property Boundary Package B EOP H Bridge / Culvert Roadway Features Eau Retaining Wall W I . . & C Parcel Boundaries `J Guardrails - i } a. r:,4 i E ) 'I I a.- ,,, I ?li is-,8 1 iliffr I .i I tst 4 - • Location of existing bridges ilitfil , . - a III ... . . , . , . r ._ , ._ ..._.... . . . . .. - , ,,i. 4 e-, rte. ,20E 1111111111 ,.... . L E -y TIliI r-, 7 E LCR . ��`� t _ . . align a ,.-- •— ` ° „ _ 120 Li• near Feet Impacted i \ r . l 120 Linear Feet Impacted 1 r I t fe * I , , �;� T � I I New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the - railway. Ix i . s ,( f f \ i : To construct the new bridges, a "shoo-fly" structure „, i. would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the /' north side of the exsting bridges. !' c ; e '� 1 - The track impacted by this "shoo-fly" are indicated in red i 1. N! e , . _ •g ,, ,, 1:1 ; rincia \ • •, yi ,. ,...,. , i , ? 0i- ' Location Map - ii ..pi ■ 0 200 • 6.... ___IFeet North ■ ■ - , , , • • - ---�� I .H. _ i J ■ I • Historic Preservation 3.15.88 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5LR.850.1 — Preferred Alternative: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a non-historic 210-foot-long steel girder railroad bridge. The Preferred Alternative involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general purpose lanes and one TEL in each direction or a total of eight traffic lanes. To accommodate this wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over I-25 with a 295-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 85 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge (see Figure 3.15-43). To replace the existing bridge with a longer structure, it would be necessary to construct a temporary "shoo-fly" structure, whereby a section of railroad would be temporarily re-aligned to cross 1-25 on the north side of the existing railroad bridge. This measure would prevent a disruption in rail service, while the old bridge is demolished and the new bridge structure is being constructed in its place. A new rail crossing would be constructed north of the existing bridge. The shoo-fly structure would require altering the existing historic railroad grade at either end of the existing bridge (approximately 70 feet on the west end and 85 feet at the east end to provide a smooth transition to the new alignment), curving to form the bypass of the existing bridge. Once the latter step has been completed, the shoo-fly would be removed, and rail traffic would be restored to its historic east-west alignment. The bridge replacement under the Preferred Alternative would place an additional 85 feet of • historic railroad line on a bridge structure similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of 1-25 on a bridge, only 85 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans 1-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. Impacts to segment 5WL.841.11 — Package A: At this location, the existing 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways span this historic railroad with twin 82-foot-long, 38-foot-wide concrete slab bridges. Neither bridge is historic. Under Package A, the northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned to the west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new, approximately 24-foot-wider, 79-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old bridges would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so that no direct impacts would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-44). Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the bridge deck. This increased 48 feet of overhead cover due to a wider bridge • decks would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Historic Preservation 3.15-89 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-43 5LR.850.1 (Great Western Railway) — Preferred Alternative • LEGEND - _ i Historical Resources F i Preferred Alternative Resource Impact • Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary . 3 •- ._ „ 5LR.850.1 Resource BoundaryIlia . „ *. Preferred Alternative F■ Bridge / Culvert y 'V EOP II Roadway Features M—. Retaining Wall I' r 71 Parcel Boundaries `J Guardrails 1,ww .� 4 h nil 1 r III I te - � ' - Location of existing bridges ,. ; I t - . VMS �- L • al E LCR 20E----- - -gyp le - . IMO AliJ . .=.11. Ira C4 7 31.. ._ y 70 Linear Feet Impacted y t 85 Linear Feet Impacted \,\it: -, a It — I 1 - ■ I i I t � g 71trier: , A_ 11 .• _ l 1 - 0 . . 4.. ill 4 r ali�.ii.. Oar-T it si .17 a A new bridge would replace existing railway bridge over , i ■ 1-25. d,, FYI f i = s To construct the new bridge, a 'shoo-fly' structure "`"�*"' �■ would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the , V , : • , • north side of the existing bridge. AtAiria;Irtt ir Art i r Location Map,:; ■ ► a J.. 4.81 el thrii ■ 'r •* 0+ " � y Ii IC0 200 Q HE �f '' .: ' I ' Feet North 44 f s .. . t. �..,p' 4ttrihii • t! .. i III Historic Preservation 3.15-90 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation 0 Figure 3.15-44 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railroad) — Package A IliLEGEND Historical Resources i I 6 ' - Package A Resource Impact i i • Package A ROW Boundary ' 3 5L 841 . 11 Property Boundary I W I 1 Package A EOP H Bridge r Culvert f ( • - Roadway Features x---41 Retaining Wall , ( Parcel Boundaries s....A Guardrails f ? III I i i I 1 The existing bridges spanning the railroad would be demolished. New i s • bridges would be constructed for each NB and SB highway configurations resulting in wider ' spans over the GWRR. The NB bridge would occupy much of the t' I+ same area as the existing 1-25 bridges. The SB bridge would span ) a _ an entirely new section of the - railroad. s. �, , • , _. .,,,, _.. ,`t ,7_ A T� -- �' i Existing and future at-grade .�.,,,� crossing l No Areas Directly Impacted 'r ! I i = i , , . , lIlIlIl N I - - j r .i 1 .til , , 3 , ' i tr I .:. , .' i i -. 1 I sit t I ' i . Location Map:- ' ti. I-. , • I fl 200 6....., Feet ' North • r I . Historic Preservation 3.15-91 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5WL.841.11 — Package B: Under Package B, this section of 1-25 is in the transition zone between a highway section containing two general purpose lanes with one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction, to a wider section containing two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction(see Figure 3.15-45). The northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned to the west of their current alignments, and these new roadways would span the historic railway on two new, approximately 70-foot-wider, 79-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures similar to those proposed for Package A. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct impacts would occur. The old bridges would be demolished. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-45). Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. However, the new bridges would place an additional 140-foot-long portion of the railway underneath the new bridge decks. This increased overhead cover due to wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5WL.841.11 — Preferred Alternative: At this location, the existing 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways span this historic railroad with twin 82-foot-long, 338-foot-wide concrete slab bridges. Neither bridge is historic. Under the Preferred Alternative, • the northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned to the west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing three general purpose lanes and a TEL in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new, approximately 24-foot-wider, 79-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old bridges would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so that no direct impacts would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-46). Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the bridge deck. This increased 48 feet of overhead cover due to a wider bridge decks would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. • Historic Preservation 3.15-92 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. IIIFigure 3.15-45 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway) — Package B . , , It a I LEGEND ' U . Historical Resources j • r Package B Resource Impact ■ + i i Package B ROW Boundary ■ NO it 5WL.841 . 11 Property Boundary ■ Package B EOP H Bridge / Culvert I 4:4 Roadway Features II--Ill Retaining Wall ■ 1t, Is-Parcel Boundaries , Guardrails ■ • e r. ■ i ■ r i I■ The existing bridges spanning the ' p railroad would be demolished. ' New bridges would be constructed ■ . ' for each NB and SB highway • configurations resulting in wider ■ spans over the GWRR. The NB ■ bridge would occupy much of the same area as the existing 1-25 • t� bridges. The SB bridge would span ■ an entirely new section of the ' ID railroad ■ . _ ' —illiarrer111_ . J _ _ I . . a III a. •�.■n Existing and I ! future at-grade di ! C crossing • ! --------7 \ - No Areas Directly Impacted i • 1 ■ i i t - ilt t ,1 , \ i. "' l a ■ ■ l ■ .I :• i ® ■ III j 1 • NB � i ■ SB •■ I . Ii_es L i • le , 1I i 1 ncnntiun Map ' i I , • ■ rI ■ ' ' 0 200 o Iimmi Feet ' III North Historic Preservation 3.15-93 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-46 5WL.841.11 (Great Western Railway) — Preferred Alternative III - - U.. III - - - --Ti -- �.- LEGEND Historical Resources 1 Preferred Alternative Resource Impact • Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 5WL.841 . 11 Resource Boundary 4 Preferred Alternative E'.l. POP ,Bridge / Culvert Y Roadway Features -1J Retaining VV all J, CParcel Boundaries -..4 Guardrails I:I i. 4 r C � Il 4 0 The existing bridges spanning the 'F ! : r railroad would be demolished. New - bridges would be constructed for 4 each NB and SB highway , ! 4 configurations resulting in wider ` I j spans over the GWRR. The NB 4 I i' bridge would occupy much of the same area as the existing 1-25 i 4 bridges. The SB bridge would span an entirely new section of the railroad. 4 It:44,4,44" .2 I Aniiinallinall Existing and ' future at-grade ', i crossing 7 � I r . i \ No Areas Directly Impacted — ',. I i u, - - . ,- . ) 1I s .nit / = Ili � . - 1 i I "- / 9 ! I t'� cl\ i t. i ,- Location Mapc; -mot i } i7PN0 200 I I Feet t North I', ; Ill Historic Preservation 3.15-94 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5LR.850.5— Package A: This rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment, and would continue to tie into the railroad mainline corridor west of Cleveland Avenue that would contain the proposed commuter rail line. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not to be expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5LR.850.5— Preferred Alternative: This rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment, and would continue to tie into the railroad mainline corridor west of Cleveland Avenue that would contain the proposed commuter rail line. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent passing track would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not be expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Impacts 5WL.841.9— Package A: Under Package A, the 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be widened from two through lanes to three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new 82-foot-long, 63 to 75-foot-wide, pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old (but non-historic) 103-foot-long, 38-foot-wide, rolled I-beam bridges, which spanned the railroad, would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this • historic railway, so that no direct impacts would occur. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroad would have 62 feet more overhead cover. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-47). Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the highway bridges. This increased overhead cover due to the new bridge decks would indirectly affect the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5WL.841.9— Package B: Under Package B, the northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing two general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated managed lane in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadway alignments would span the historic railway on new 82-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder- type bridge structures. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroads would have 62 feet more overhead cover. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct impacts would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see • Figure 3.15-47). Historic Preservation 3.15-95 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation Figure 3.15-47 5WL.841.9 (Great Western Railway) — Packages A and B III ii T., LEGEND 1 Historical Resources aPackages A & B Resource Impact Packages A & B ROW Boundary 5WL 841 9 Property Boundary Packages EOP H Bridge r Culvert �..[ i Roadway Features W—� Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails I uu 5 1 The existing bridges spanning the railroad would be demolished. New : ' bridges would be constructed for I61. g Existin and each NB and SB highway , future at-grade configurations resulting in wider ;4 crossing spans over the GWRR. The NB bridge would occupy much of theIt � . ' l same area as the existing 1-25 1 " ' i. bridges. The SB bridge would span an entirely new section of the 5 railroad. The combined width of the two new bridges would result in 62 • " ` -. ` _ 1 ...-+ fire feet more overhead cover of the �� railroad than the existing bridges. _' '� Ill �, �l i` 1 • J � ' 1 Irar-li 11 i III.... ,.......s to ' No Areas Directly Impacted ! 11 `� I 4 .. . F a • i i . \ 1 ' i 1 r- ' i . • 2-1• ; - i -'-v- _ ! * 1.� i rr i 1 1 * • '• { NB 4h. 2 SB r i Location Map - , • �, . i VN 0 200 .rr • I Feet North - ( ! -ii Historic Preservation 3.15-96 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place an additional portion of the railway underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to the wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts 5WL.841.9— Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, the 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be widened from two through lanes to three general purpose lanes and TEL in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new 82-foot-long, 63 to 75-foot-wide, pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old (but non-historic) 103-foot-long, 38-foot-wide, rolled I-beam bridges, which spanned the railroad, would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so no direct impacts would occur. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroad would have 62 feet more overhead cover. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 3.15-48). Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural • terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting. A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the highway bridges. This increased overhead cover due to the new bridge decks would indirectly affect the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5BL.514.1 — Package A: The commuter rail improvements in this area call for the addition of a dedicated commuter rail track parallel to this existing freight railroad track. In all cases the existing rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not expect to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Impacts to segment 5BL.514.1 — Preferred Alternative: The commuter rail improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative in this area call for the commuter rail to run on the existing freight railroad track. The existing rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. No direct impacts to the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The addition of the commuter rail would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not expect to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. • Historic Preservation 3.15-97 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-48 5WL.841.9 (Great Western Railway) — Preferred Alternative 0 in-r--- LEGEND _ Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 1 t._ s_ -. 5WL.841 .9 Resource Boundary Preferred Alternative �i P . EOP �• Bridge /Culvert*saki_ Roadway Features I —N Retaining Wall , k ` 'I Parcel Boundaries A.,4A.,4Guardrails 4 _ _ r a M The existing bridges spanning the . : railroad would be demolished. New 111 • : . Existing and bridges would be constructed for it � 4 future at-grade each NB and SB highway , crossing ! configurations resulting in wider 4 spans over the GWRR. The NB i , bridge would occupy much of the I �I .. • , . same area as the existing 1-25 bridges. The SB bridge would span li an entirely new section of the L.. ... • railroad. The combined width of the '" " + alar— two new bridges would result in 121 t - feet more overhead cover of the 4 railroad than the existing bridges. 0 �sr -alifilier"--- \ i No Areas Directly Impacted . I __ __4i 1, t _ .4.:_c_ _I ,. i , 'i 4 I - • f ri --Eq. - -. I y: i _ O' 1 t 1, _: I 4 —• / •' . 1 NB ' `l, :. I• -iii SB 4 IA1 0 ' ce Location Map a g i t r "-. I I r 17\ / 11 1 0 200 S Feet North 4 ` r • Historic Preservation 3.15-98 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation. transportation. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: 170 feet of railroad track at segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). New commuter rail track along the transportation corridor would contribute to modern, but compatible rail infrastructure elements to the historic setting at two localities (5BL.514.1 and 5LR.850.5). The impacts to these segments associated with the proposed Package A transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer, Weld and Boulder counties (5LR.850, 5WL.841, and 5BL.514). Package B: 240 feet of railroad track at segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). The impacts to these segments associated with the proposed Package B transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer and Weld counties (5LR.850 and 5WL.841). Preferred Alternative: 155 feet of railroad track at segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly • impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). Commuter rail traffic. along the transportation corridor would contribute to modern, but compatible rail elements to the historic setting at two localities (5BL.514.1 and 5LR.850.5). The impacts to these segments associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer, Weld and Boulder counties (5LR.850, 5WL.841, and 5BL.514). 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevatorj Resource Description: The Zimmerman Grain Elevator is located on the east side of 1-25 adjacent to the GWR (5LR.850), and was built in 1917. The bolted steel panel elevator structure is an intact example of a specialized agricultural building that was important to dryland farming in Larimer and Weld counties in the early 20th century. It is one of several similar steel panel grain elevators built along the railroads of the Front Range during the early 20th century. Eligibility Determination: Based on its important association with Larimer County agriculture and as a well-preserved example of a pre-fabricated early twentieth grain elevator, this property is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Effect Determination — Package A: 1-25 is depressed in an underpass beneath the GWR to • the west of the historic grain elevator. Under Package A, 1-25 in this area would be substantially widened to accommodate three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned and widened approximately 21 feet to the east. A retaining wall and guardrail would be installed along the west edge of this Historic Preservation 3.15-99 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • frontage road, to protect the road and traffic from the steep slope of the highway cut. No right- of-way encroachment or other direct impacts to the parcel containing the historic grain elevator would occur under Package A, although the distance between the building and the east edge of pavement of the northbound 1-25 roadway (in the underpass cut)would be reduced from approximately 223 feet to approximately 170 feet. Although 1-25 would be wider and closer to the historic grain elevator, it sits depressed below the elevation of the grain elevator, and the historic agricultural setting has already been compromised to some degree by the original construction of 1-25 adjacent to the property in the 1960s (see Figure 3.15-49). The improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish the historical and architectural characteristics which render the property eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Zimmerman Grain Elevator. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, 1-25 in this vicinity would be substantially widened to accommodate two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned and widened approximately 21 feet to the east. No right-of-way encroachment or other direct impact to the parcel containing the historic grain elevator would occur under Package B, although the distance between the building and the east edge of pavement of the northbound 1-25 roadway would be reduced from approximately 223 feet to approximately 143 feet (see Figure 3.15-50). Although 1-25 would be larger and closer to the historic grain elevator, the setting has already been compromised to some degree by the original construction of 1-25 adjacent to the property in the 1960s. • The improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish the architectural characteristics which render the property NRHP-eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Zimmerman Grain Elevator. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: 1-25 is depressed in an underpass beneath the GWR to the west of the historic grain elevator. Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 in this area would be substantially widened to accommodate three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned and widened approximately 21 feet to the east. A retaining wall and guardrail would be installed along the west edge of this frontage road, to protect the road and traffic from the steep slope of the highway cut. Direct impacts to the parcel containing the historic grain elevator would occur as a result of the wider footprint and associated fill slopes on the east side of the frontage road. A total of 0.03 acre of land would be incorporated into the transportation infrastructure under the Preferred Alternative. There would be no impacts to any structures including the historic grain elevators within the property boundary, although the distance between the building and the east edge of pavement of the northbound 1-25 roadway (in the underpass cut) would be reduced from approximately 223 feet to approximately 170 feet. Although 1-25 would be wider and closer to the historic grain elevator, it sits depressed below the elevation of the grain elevator, and the historic agricultural setting has already been compromised to some degree by the original construction of 1-25 adjacent to the property in the 1960s (see Figure 3.15-51). The improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish the historical and architectural characteristics which render the property eligible. FHWA, FTA • and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Zimmerman Grain Elevator. Historic Preservation 3.15-100 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Il information cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-49 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator) — Package A LEGEND J ,, Historical Resources I , Package A Resource Impact . ' Package A ROW Boundary T 5LR. 11408 Property Boundary 1 Package A E0P H Bridge Guardrails El1 Roadway Features ill.. Retaining Wall JParcel Boundaries 4,, Guardrailsh—illir p il4" it 4 I • No Areas Directly Impacted 1111 •lCR2!!! . f r- rrss, m . . ____ a ' u. reller �� , r r r .i • • ! •es Ill r _ k • • , - i ' • NI . . t ,4, ir"I I4 • < P 'if 4, fri " i iti i5 L JAI . , 4 y cp.;,I$ a lir °"' ' t t i-Alk,,, t. . t.' if . / h , el 'J Location Ma-pi:-F---- w ' r i rr*. P.-O , ' t v J 150 : 1 it. �a Feet i� i b 4 North evct var III • Historic Preservation 3.15-101 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-50 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator) — Package B4111 j .a r I , , ,.._... •woT LEGEND I- 11 .. ) ++ Historical Resources alPackage B Resource Impact ' I I Package B ROW Boundary � ... 5LR 11408 Property Boundary w. , IX i L Ti Package B EOP H Bridge Guardraik. OW -n Roadway Features N.. Retaining Wall r • 614 Parcel Boundaries `. a Gi,;r,rir.ul-, u,.Vi, it;i `'e sr A .. rir I ( i '41 ji.1, a• • • is No Areas Directly Impacted III- --is.tEriCR20E , 41-4.7,- ' • 011. : ‘ 'mil • 4- +i ', - * wit S 9t t .4r b'r. II p I: , • S. ,( \' . ( t - ' . r' .• err . . ,a . ti ,fr i • - T,- til •, / �t �. �� 1, t_ _I' , i I r r i. I iii, nig, _ ,. / �:. {1) 1 r Location Map } ;. 4 - ' ) 1 ► rt. r� ( f VQ & e 0 150 • )tar `� I Feet North . III Historic Preservation 3.15-102 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-51 5LR.11408 (Zimmerman Grain Elevator) — Preferred Alternative LEGENDi ti 4ik,� , Historical Resources1 ■ ' Preferred Alternative Resource Impact 1 Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary t 'ii IIIi r SLR.11408 Property Boundary II' r- - Preferred Alternative l..... Bridge Guardrails a a POP I . Roadway Features Ea. Retaining Wall ' 04. g i Parcel Boundaries L._, Guardrails ' ■ •• ,y�, .,� (• : r:t ( " ' "1) rT-; . ' rim � '� tlia 1 1 1 {: r i 1 1 f 1 tail. 1 7 Area = 1,194 Sq. Ft Acres = 0.03 4 -•�0 ,, Iris E LCIRleE . . I r - Z r, t � ► ' I' '' . • AM .. • 11.111,21111 I, iY • • } Nee lir VIMINK • I - I I ! • • t II r ! '4 • -1 I I V_--- r ■ ► ' ii i. , ii. 1 .. - r. 4 • ' I 4. 4 N . ./ r T i i i ii l • t.- - ri y ■ r— • �, i i Kr ■ ► 1 --(.\1,- lucatl n M - ... �J °EN I (111141- ), ! _► I - 0 150 0 I i• l Feet North ii 1 Historic Preservation 3.15-103 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 5LR. 11382 (Hatch Farm) Resource Description : The Hatch Farm is located at 640 Southeast ,. : V Frontage Road in Larimer County on the ' c east side of 1-25, slightly more than one " `' `' ti ` mile south of US 34, southeast of tic` �. 'x - Loveland. An examination of historical ik,4 _ _ ' ' maps and directories shows that the land - wr.where this barn is situated in Section 15 .. - � .• -� of Township 5N �p - �� 1�Range 68W .'was originally a 160-acre parcel owned by T. R. Norcross in 1915 and 1940. It was Hatch Barn owned by E.A. & Katherine Gooch in 1956 and 1959 and by Katherine Gooch in 1968. According to the Larimer County Assessor's card file, it was owned by Moffat & Sons around 1974. This property includes a historic balloon-framed barn , constructed circa 1920.The barn is surrounded by farmland. The current owner of the property, Mr. James R. Hatch , was contacted for additional information . He has owned the property for about 30 years. He indicated that the barn that is on the site had been built in approximately 1904 on the Frank farm which is located east of 1-25 on US 34. The barn was moved to this site in 1968 . The original part of the barn is the center part below the hay loft. The wings of the barn were added on in 1968 after it was moved to this property. From the time of its move to this property, it has always been used as storage space. It has not been associated with agricultural uses since its move to this property. Eligibility Determination : The significance of the Hatch Farm is attributed to the architecture of the barn. The Hatch barn retains very good architectural integrity, is an excellent example of a specialized type and construction method of agricultural architecture, and was determined to be officially eligible for the NRHP on August 9, 2007 under Criterion C . Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package Al the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be changed from the existing two general purpose lanes in each direction , to a wider footprint containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction . The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, the Package A design calls for the construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic property. Ponds in this area were placed to avoid wetlands and Section 4(f) protected parkland along the Big Thompson River. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 300 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 0.9 acre in size. The southernmost pond would extend approximately 104 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 1 .2 acres in size. Together, these ponds would impact approximately 2 . 1 acres of land within the site boundary, or approximately two percent of the area of the 106.78-acre historic farm property (see Figure 3.15-52). The planned ROW allows for a 10-foot-wide, continuous maintenance easement along the retaining walls and southern basin , which can be accessed from the unpaved county road . The northern pond is accessible from both a 10-foot-wide easement along the toe slope and existing farm driveways. Historic Preservation 3.15-104 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-52 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm) — Package A ... .......on ID=O , LEGEND 1 -to, \,._ , i .4$ • 1' Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact / 1 `' - Package A ROW Boundary ! . 5LR. 11382 Property Boundary - . . - " JPackage A EOP H Bridge Guardrails ' Roadway Features ill.. Retaining Wall •:' _J Parcel Boundaries a„, Guardrails t E LC R 20E I . iii—aphi. -_;ism 114;1743. i.wir " ,: * ..: + .11 lip..,.... , . i , ID, , . r , 4 plii p r *7744 . if 14- 1 f m � � ?it . . .r *) y 4 . . Ste . . . I Mil ' R . ? ` 'a ' `isi if t. '• 1 , . k . IMF le.Zip pi : se cr ai, , X . _,,,:y ill 1 , - ..`` . * �ti j ask wet.. -47 . -4 ° ' ie. 4 Pitt !if , _ : - - . , ,~� i2; le ► ? c Area = 39,096 Sq. Ft .: .f- -t .- . I I" Acres = 0.9 ,.. de II .n -} Ill' 1, �-- I; N lT il . y S 17, . th Ill ill II T . .34 "I ;tea ' 1 ii, ,I9r ;i j Area = 52,292 Sq. Ft } ! { l . ,. ,. � Acres = 1 .2 ' • a "; • • 'f ,kg„, . . i- L•7; !ifitAriv. r ,-" if I • . n 04 de C I • . -,.. • LIS '4 letil• ij ; a 1 . , - ..iit 4 . , % . ' \L. . ,, -44 - 0 300 a. t k• Or I III ' Feet 1 ' t• North .... Or a Historic Preservation 3.15-105 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The proposed water quality ponds would be visually unobtrusive. The historic barn would not be directly or indirectly affected by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package A would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be altered to include two general purpose lanes and two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, the Package B design specifies the construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic site. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 286 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 0.87 acre in size. The southernmost pond would extend approximately 91 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 1.33 acres in size. Together, these ponds would impact approximately 2.2 acres of land within the site boundary, or approximately two percent of the area of the 106.78-acre historic farm property (see Figure 3.15-53). The planned ROW allows for a 10-foot-wide, continuous maintenance easement along the retaining walls and southern basin, which can be accessed from the unpaved county road. The northern pond is accessible from both a 10-foot-wide easement along the toe slope and • existing farm driveways. The historic barn on the Hatch Farm property would not be directly or indirectly affected by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package B would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be changed from the existing two general purpose lanes in each direction, to a wider footprint containing three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, the Preferred Alternative design calls for the construction of a water quality pond on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic property. The pond was placed in this area to avoid wetlands and Section 4(f) protected parkland along the Big Thompson River. The pond would extend approximately 104 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 1.18 acres in size. Together, this pond and the widened footprint of the transportation infrastructure would impact approximately 1.33 acres of land within the site boundary, or approximately one percent of the area of the 106.78-acre historic farm property (see Figure 3.15-54). The planned ROW allows for a 10-foot-wide, continuous maintenance easement along the retaining walls and southern basin, which can be accessed from the unpaved county road. • Historic Preservation 3.15-106 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Very little of the original 160-acre farm is still used for agriculture. There are no farm buildings on the Hatch property except for the barn and that no longer has any association with agriculture. Mr. Hatch said that his 8-acre parcel has not been used as cropland since the 1940s. It was used as a wrecking yard in the 1950s. The Big Thompson River flows through the northern portion of the original farm. The property has been divided and sold and is now in a variety of uses. There is a campground on 12 acres in the northwest part of the original farm. Mr. Hatch has 8 acres with about 4 acres used for his trucking business and the other 4 acres used for residential uses. The land to the south of the Big Thompson River has been a large gravel pit for the last 15 years. The only remaining agricultural use of the land is for pasture on the land surrounding the gravel pit operation. The barn is eligible under Criterion C, but the site has lost integrity in terms of setting as the there are no other buildings on site that were associated with agricultural uses. The proposed water quality pond would be visually unobtrusive. The historic barn would not be directly or indirectly affected by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. The loss of the land from the site is not adverse because the setting and feeling of this property have been changed with the development of the campground, the service garage, the trucking business and the gradual reduction of agricultural use of the property. The approximate 1.33 acres of land that would be taken for this project is mainly vacant land with some portions of the land being used as an area to park trucks for the trucking business. The barn was not used for agricultural purposes on this property. The association for this property • is now commercial rather than agricultural. The material, workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not be affected by a loss of land from the site. Due to the prior loss of the agricultural setting of this property and the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn which is the reason for the property's eligibility, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-107 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-53 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm) — Package B III . _ ' r LEGEND �' , Historical Resources II II Package B Resource Impact II II ~ a Package B ROW Boundary II !I ' 5LR. 11382 Property Boundary II II . Y ••4 JPackage B EOP H Bridge Guardrails , _ Roadway Features §—a Retaining Wall r A IParcel Boundaries A., Guardrails III I 1 1� ti. .4., 11111 1 waili ir IN"'IL kL‘III ► I I I II _ .. E LCR 20E -r�' j• giltc1.47,,4,•H IW 171141, F allillialliel ecot . ,491, " ! y ell s ,, . ; . , 1l ft 00 1 --ti a r. i r IIP Ai re* • pre A Pe III ''' "Ck \ . . ill' Katie • • \ ,Ili _ l , k Pr Id IL ' . ' g . . . 0- filk It • Nit 'col ' ' SPI „oft;itite as ifr'! 0.4 4: et ilitat a • tit H � 4,_.: I. )0., . Its ipt+. it F F f rf ..i, . i ire • �y It E I • . /r 1 11 r , • .41:. 1�-er 1 4 Area = 38, 114 Sq. Ft Acres = 0.87 Iii # . . .... . . i x i i 7'1 �H • - I r . . " �•r.. ♦, •f . .�-rte i . j 'i p ■ I / , 11 Vii; -IZU i v t / $ . 1, ' .:4 �' , • i I I Area = 57,774 Sq. Ft ,-, Location Maps .• 4 ilk lit �� 41 • t Acres = 1 .33 — 0 300 Ie i ISHII% ' r 41 Q I j Ir• t Feet NII I * $:ilt. *kin-snillAl x Ali III orthit • 1- Historic Preservation 3.15-108 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.15-54 5LR.11382 (Hatch Farm) — Preferred Alternative T- LEGEND .. , •Historical Resources • J L / 4 III Preferred Alternative Resource Impact - • l Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary • r;— Y..' r 0 5LR.11382 Property Boundary t .10,, Preferred Alternative FU Bridge Guardrails EOP i 1 Roadway Features M.. Retaining Wall — t" I" • Parcel Boundaries J Guardrails • S- . ITIPIIIIIIII�R ' x�,j- 'a'• r V:t i - ` i . © CR.20E 7 - 1`ne ,0:. •�` c� i. lir �!' I I 5 d;. . t .. Jet f ...„,:_,, it III r -.r t Iry i "tit '-. ' - • Y rs A4ititiii_. aka. 1' '• I , I -, r . roxi,,. /( i itr ,- _- : - . ,r— f am , ' t r., . I ill 4., • • Area = 6,520 Sq. Ft 0 Acres = ,0 15 52 d hitt I :ill I • 11 I mss.\ I I t ,, \ ill N l 1 I - - ` II ji 1 + I I I i Area = 51,488 Sq. Ft _. I Acres = 1 .18 ?J • ,.. I 1 Eli Iil I - - .- . i y ...r-4 I 1 ; +s . . • � I 1 lig! a • . `'— Location' Map `,_,,, VN 411 'T •, aF iet • t 1::y ' ti 0 300 Al; • Feet North • c fro 0 IIIIMINES . 4 ..,_ ,"'S ' Historic Preservation 3.15-109 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the historic Hillsboro Ditch crosses 1-25 just south of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. The irrigation ditch was constructed as one of the first cooperatively owned ditches in the area. The entire ditch (5LR.8927) is approximately 19.25 miles long. The documented segment in the project APE (5LR.8927.1) is 2,065 feet (0.4 mile) long. The ditch channel is approximately 20 feet wide. Sparse riparian growth covers both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area is primarily rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The entire Hillsboro Ditch is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Outside the 1-25 right-of-way, this segment of the functioning ditch appears to maintain its historic alignment and its association with the rural landscape through which it runs. The segment (5LR.8927.1) within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, 1-25 would be expanded to 8 lanes, containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The Hillsboro Ditch is presently conveyed beneath 1-25 inside a modern CBC. The box culvert would be replaced with a new, 135-foot-longer box culvert of the same cross section dimensions, 14 feet wide and 14 feet tall. That portion of the Hillsboro Ditch already inside the 1-25 culvert has lost integrity. Widening of the 1-25 southbound lanes, ramp and the associated slopes under Package A would require 90 feet of land west of the existing road slope edge. This requires enclosing 90 feet of open ditch on the east side of 1-25 in a new culvert to allow for the • expanded highway construction. Similar widening of the highway and fill slopes along the northbound lanes requires that 45 feet of open ditch be enclosed in a culvert on the east side of 1-25. A total of approximately 135 feet of open ditch would be subject to direct impact from Package A transportation improvements (see Figure 3.15-55). Construction of the concrete culverts would require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access, and would require a temporary easement. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from construction-related sedimentation. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the preexisting culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible. The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). Effect Determination — Package B: Package B specifies that the 1-25 section would be improved to an eight-lane facility and would contain two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. Direct impacts to the Hillsboro Ditch associated from Package B are nearly identical in nature and extent to those associated with Package A (see Figure 3.15-55). • Historic Preservation 3.15-110 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the pre-existing culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible. The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 would be expanded to 8 lanes, containing three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The Hillsboro Ditch is presently conveyed beneath 1-25 inside a modern CBC. The box culvert would be replaced with a new, 55-foot-longer box culvert of the same cross section dimensions, 14 feet wide and 14 feet tall. That portion of the Hillsboro Ditch already inside the 1-25 culvert has lost integrity. Widening of the 1-25 southbound lanes, ramp and the associated slopes under the Preferred Alternative would require 90 feet of land west of the existing road slope edge. This requires that 55 feet of open ditch be enclosed in a culvert on the east side of 1-25. A total of approximately 55 feet of open ditch would be subject to direct impact from the Preferred Alternative transportation improvements (see Figure 3.15-56). Construction of the concrete culverts would require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access, and would require a temporary easement. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from construction-related sedimentation. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition • and appearance. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the pre-existing culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible. The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). • Historic Preservation 3.15-111 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-55 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch) — Packages A and B 0 II ■ 1 . , . LEGEND ie ■ Historical Resources — • 1 Packages A & B Resource Impact ■ P Packages A & B ROW Boundary ■ ,s ■ I SLR 8927. 1 Property Boundary ■ IIIPackages EOP IF.. Bridge i Culvert i Roadway Features M.■ Retaining Wall ■ l!1 Parcel Boundaries L A Guardrails ■ � . it' ■ I ■ S' ■ � 4 ■ p ■ * Open ditch placed inside extended culverts 5 1 A'' op . ■ i ■ I . iilit a fir " � - .. 7 �. � III . . LS , i , , yr\ i 4, _tit .___•____ a 1 90 Linear Feet Impacted .11 / ' ' 1 ■ �_ ti •N 45 Linear Feet Impacted ,t ■ a �. '`.:4-c . r - / ■ ■ I- • i I ■ 1 " • ■ N • ® I'1 ■ a I - I /. Location • ■ Map • - • •■ VN • ■ 0 200 / f I Feet North ■ • • III Historic Preservation 3.15-112 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 3.15-56 5LR.8927.1 (Hillsboro Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND 71.-- Historical ResourcesII Preferred Alternative Resource Impact I `s-'- . : , _ . Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 4,,, , 5LR.8927. 1 Property Boundary • II ® ; Preferred Alternative EOP �. Bridge / Culvert Si • i Roadway Features FU Retaining Wall . 4 , CParcel Boundaries A.A Guardrails 4 • \ S . $ - s +i i _ ' ■ a ' ' . 4 M ._ Open ditch placed iiippot. • * I t , I . inside extended culverts 4 : - - - . - I .._ - Ill7,, / -III mpappatiti, , . _ :_i_400 . .._ .1 . 4 et is ■ • ii a , a .� F 55 Linear Feet Impacted . .� s � • -. i , i I \ i i e I< 4 _- 1 r — r . IA LI . , r 1 g R ---' _ , .. - /_ _ _ 4 \, : t' f. I oca , ti I ion Ma 4 V ,� �1 i �u 0 200 Feet North �� 0 . , Historic Preservation 3.15-113 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm' Resource Description: The Mountain View Farm is located at 5531 SH 402, at the northwest corner of 1-25 and SH 402 several miles southeast of Loveland. The farm appears to date to the mid-1970s with lands being acquired from other landowners along SH 402 including Kenneth Wolfe, the Kelly's and Masts. The current farm boundaries came from at least two previous ownerships. Through the 1970s and 1980s lands were bought and sold by Mountain View Farms, Inc. as they established their land base, including a major addition to the land base in 1986 from Kenneth Wolfe. The current owners, Arlo and Barbara Johnston, have been involved in real estate speculation elsewhere in the Loveland area. The Johnstons do not live on the property; rather they rent the house and use the other buildings for their farming operations. The original farm located in this area (160 acres in SW ''A of Section 22)was patented on June 1895 by William A. Bean under the Timber Culture Act. In the past, the farm has been used for growing of sugar beets, hay, grain and for dairy operations. In the 1950s and 1960s the farm was rented to Carl Rieckle. He grew barley, corn, sweet corn and raised cattle on the farm. In 1915, this site was a 160-acre farm but it is currently 136 acres. Some of the land at the southeast corner of the farm was developed into the 1-25/ SH 402 Interchange. The farmhouse, which was built in 1923, was moved onto this site after the construction of 1-25 and then remodeled in 1964. There are five historic buildings on the site, six modern buildings and nine modern features. The historic buildings include the farmhouse, a milking parlor built in the 1950s, a calving shed, a feedlot shed and another shed all dating to the 1930s. Eligibility Determination: On July 24, 2006, the CDOT determined, and the SHPO • concurred, that the Mountain View Farm was officially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with 20th century farming. The integrity of the historic agricultural setting was compromised in the 1960s when 1-25 was built adjacent to its eastern border. However, the land that is now owned and used by Mountain View Farms was not assembled until after the construction of 1-25. The introduction of the interstate highway adjacent to the farm in the 1960s also affected the feeling and association by the introduction of the highway as a modern non-agricultural element. Those impacts were evident when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP in 2006. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic farm would experience direct impacts associated with proposed improvement of the I-25/SH 402 interchange. Package A would re- align the 1-25 southbound off-ramp west of the existing off-ramp, and would require the acquisition of a 60 to 100-foot-wide strip of cultivated farmland at the east edge of the historic farm property to accommodate the proposed new off-ramp from southbound 1-25 to SH 402. Another direct impact would occur near the farmhouse as a result of widening along the north edge of SH 402 to add turn and through lanes at the off-ramp. The new width of roadway along SH 402 would convert a maximum of 100 feet of farm property at the intersection with the southbound off-ramp, tapering to a 20-foot-wide strip of new transportation right-of-way near the driveway to the farmhouse. The highway overpass and ramp intersections would be approximately 22 feet above the highway at the bridge similar to the existing interchange configuration. However, the Package A design necessitates extending the slope from the elevated overpass and ramp intersections westward to the existing grade of SH 402 much closer to the historic farm house than is the case with the existing interchange configuration. • Historic Preservation 3.15-114 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. A total area of 4.76 acres of land would be converted from open farmland to paved roadway and fill slopes within the historic farm boundary. This area amounts to approximately 3.5 percent of the 136.22 acre farm. No historic buildings would be directly impacted by these transportation improvements (see Figure 3.15-57). However, the presence of the existing 1-25 highway ramps and interchange already introduce modern elements into this agricultural setting. Under Package A, the fill slopes and ramps are moved closer to the eastern edge of the farm, and would be slightly taller than the existing slopes, ramps and overpass. Another change would be construction of a proposed new park and ride parking lot on the south side of SH 402 near the farm. Traffic noise generated by 1-25 would decrease two decibels because the highway would be re-aligned to the east, away from the farmhouse. Although the new southbound off-ramp would be built on a new alignment closer and elevated relative to the farmhouse, noise from existing traffic and the closer ramp would not substantially alter the agricultural setting or diminish the architectural characteristics that render the property NRHP-eligible. A temporary construction easement may be requested along the eastern edge of the property for to allow haul roads, construction access, and/or staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this temporary construction activity on the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction-related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, but would not permanently affect the character of the farm setting. Thus, indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities are not expected to substantially • diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings NRHP- eligible. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Anticipated impacts to the property under Package B are similar in character and extent to those expected from Package A improvements. A total area of 5.28 acres of land may be subject to direct impact. This area amounts to approximately four percent of the136.22-acre farm. No historic buildings would be directly impacted by these transportation improvements. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. Indirect effects to the historic farm would be the same as with Package A (see Figure 3.15-58). The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-115 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-57 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm) — Package A • LEGEND I Historical Resources i Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary 1 5LR. 11242 Property Boundary • lPackage A EOP H Bridge Guardrails ' Roadway Features M.. Retaining Wall iI Parcel Boundaries An.s Guardrails F • II ,i r ; • il i j 1 P. • . • 1 Area = 207,442 Sq. Ft A-s-viiiiii Acres = 4.76 I ; - ', Si \ . 111114((((( ;j .�`t.'- ;- `'S j ' I,} h r I � ` ,.) 02,-� �/ � �,„ asiti :. . . • w . __ - — ., AA' It ._ . tiAiriall. ' __________ x.,,13 v.„ • _%, , ,Locatio • n Ma-p- 1-.,- .■ •. • 0 400 7\ \ `tttttttttttttl t l Feet North Historic Preservation 3.15.116 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation IIIFigure 3.15-58 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm) — Package B - - - iii - LEGEND Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5LR 11242 Property Boundary . \ Package B EOP I♦.. Bridge Guardrail. . JRoadway Features e.i. Retaining V all i 9 Parcel Boundaries Ap., Guardrails i 5 r .I • I 11 , I Ill.. _ ' .. I I 1` II I l l ', 111 11,1 -a , 1 . .. . . . : i i I \ . 1, i ; L 11 - \ • -._. • - Area = 230, 144 Sq. Ft• �I II Acres = 5.28 �� Aik. _ U �, . _ \ii \\ \ Il i; 1 I - . —7-- \- , 1% +, ,_ I I _ : % - j _ -a. 't 1 \\\ I i I' t '1 I - r / ,, LATH\H L,,,i'' L, ---\Location Mai. p 0 400 r t Feet North1\k\I i �� • Historic Preservation 3.15-117 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: This historic farm would experience direct impacts associated with proposed improvement of the 1-25 /SH 402 interchange. The Preferred Alternative would re-align the 1-25 southbound off-ramp west of the existing off-ramp, and would require the acquisition of a strip of cultivated farmland that includes an irrigation canal at the east edge of the historic farm property to accommodate the proposed new off- ramp from southbound 1-25 to SH 402. The grade of the new off-ramp would be higher than the existing off-ramp. The first 400 feet of the new ramp exiting 1-25 would be up to 5.5 feet higher than the existing ground. The next 900 feet would be up to 7 feet lower than the existing ground and the remaining 850 feet would be up to 26.5 feet higher than the existing ground. Currently, SH 402 is located under 1-25. The Preferred Alternative would modify this grade separation so that SH 402 would be located over 1-25. The grade of SH 402 directly in front of the Mountain View farm buildings would vary from 0 to 6 feet higher than the current grade of SH 402. As the road continues east, it would climb to a height of 22 feet at the intersection with the southbound off-ramp and the northbound on-ramp. The grade of 1-25 on the east side of the Mountain View Farm would be a maximum of 10 feet higher than existing ground level along the northern third of the farm property and a maximum of 25 feet lower than existing ground level for the remainder of the property. Another direct impact would occur near the farmhouse as a result of widening along the north edge of SH 402 to add turn and through lanes at the off-ramp. The new width of roadway along SH 402 would convert a maximum of 100 feet of farm property at the intersection with • the southbound off-ramp, tapering off near the driveway to the farmhouse. The highway overpass and ramp intersections would be approximately 22 feet above the highway at the bridge similar to the existing interchange configuration. However, the Preferred Alternative design necessitates extending the slope from the elevated overpass and ramp intersections westward to the existing grade of SH 402 closer to the historic farm house than is the case with the existing interchange configuration. A total area of 1.82 acres of land would be converted from open farmland to paved roadway and fill slopes within the historic farm boundary. This area amounts to approximately 1.3 percent of the 136.22-acre farm. No historic buildings would be directly impacted by these transportation improvements (see Figure 3.15-59). However, the presence of the existing 1-25 highway ramps and interchange already introduce modern elements into this agricultural setting. Under the Preferred Alternative, the fill slopes and ramps would be moved closer to the eastern edge of the farm, and would be slightly taller than the existing slopes, ramps and overpass. Another change would be construction of a proposed new park and ride parking lot on the south side of SH 402 near the farm. A small informal parking area currently exists on the west side of the southbound 1-25 access from SH 402. This parking area would be replaced with a park and ride lot on the south side of SH 402 directly south of the Mountain View Farm. This would be an indirect effect in the visual landscape. Traffic noise generated by 1-25 would decrease three decibels because the highway would be re-aligned to the east, away from the farmhouse. Although the new southbound off-ramp would be built on a new alignment closer to and elevated above the farmhouse, noise from existing • traffic and the closer ramp would not substantially alter the agricultural setting or diminish the architectural characteristics that render the property NRHP-eligible. Historic Preservation 3.15-118 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-59 5LR.11242 (Mountain View Farm) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND Historical Resources 1 Preferred Alternative Resource Impact JJ i [ Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary I 5LR.11242 Property Boundary 1 i Preferred Alternative - POP �� Bridge Guardrails Roadway Features Retaining VVall w i. r H a ....r r 4 Parcel Boundaries 4 Guardrails _ . _ II II • III -.,,iii I� Area = 79,554 Sq. Ft I` Acres = 1 .82 , j i3 \ •r• '‘ li s__i- Of ,4 £ : f a. Ii , \ vi - }111 - . - al U ,;4i , 402' - ; \I -4,_4( .. Location Map : - \\ , -- I I l I 1,, F, , iI7N \ 0 400 ii Feet North - : "\\ • Historic Preservation 3.15-119 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • A temporary construction easement may be required along the eastern edge of the property for to allow haul roads, construction access, and/or staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this temporary construction activity on the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction-related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature and would not permanently affect the character of the farm setting. Thus, indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities are not expected to substantially diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings NRHP-eligible. The impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur along the eastern edge of the farm adjacent to 1-25 where the original integrity of the farm was compromised with the highway's intrusion on the visual landscape some 40 years ago. There would be no materially different visual perception of the farm from the Preferred Alternative. The farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the farm would continue to convey significance in terms of the lands' association with early agricultural development in Larimer County. CDOT's determination is that the farm was still significant in 2006, in spite of the changes to the setting, feeling and association. The farm would continue on as it was in 2006 except for the removal of 1.82 acres in a thin strip of land along portions of the east and south borders of the farm. The land in the far southeast corner of the property is being used as a cattle feed lot and pasture. To the north of the pasture, the land is being used to produce grain. Air photos from previous years show that parts of the land on this farm have been irrigated with center pivot irrigation. A concrete-lined irrigation ditch lateral is located along the east side of the property in the take strip. The land that would be taken along the south • property has recently been cropped with grains. The visual representations presented on the following two pages illustrate the existing settings on the farm and the change with the Preferred Alternative. Modifications to the l-25/SH 402 interchange as a result of this project will not be the driving force for indirect or cumulative effects in this area. The indirect effects from the visual changes resulting from SH 402 over vs. under 1-25 would not spur development of this area but for this proposed project. There has been an interstate interchange providing access to this area for about 50 years. The character of the area has remained agricultural over these past five decades. Moving an off-ramp slightly west and changing the crossing of SH 402 from over the highway to under the highway would not force change the character of this area. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the loss of an additional 1.82 acres of land for construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to this farm because the characteristics that define the integrity of the rural landscape would not be compromised. The location, design, materials and workmanship of the farm would remain the same. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any of the farm buildings nor would the setting be affected. The mountains to the west of the farm continue to be a key element of its historic setting. The interstate highway on the east has been there for over forty years and was a part of the setting when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP. The feeling would remain one of an active farm. The association is still strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. The Mountain View Farm was determined eligible under Criterion A for its association with 20th century Larimer County farming. That association would not change as a result of implementation of the Preferred Alternative. • Historic Preservation 3.15-120 0 O M 1.1- 0 d C C O i W ca- ,.-4O I • c .�r-Li 71 cn• a. O 4 CV • figs ' ' >+ 1 - ' \� ,�• /\\ O O t .. -lit if, . lot,„44, 1 a.) c (A ....:' : a_ r 1 •r O y f ti t? \ , O O ' it CO c` ' Ill il a 111 '. 1 i t , z Las COlc. _ - ,L, ‘. CD r t �, 1. � N o LL I :-,,,-; Ay i 'fir -W .r p�. i _. "w t o �/ —i. ` 1 _ Y• + C � ._. , _ p 3• :�� O C ; _ .. . a� •3 , •> c.o .> _O la) i • O E -c .� irki �� (Z 0 p u_ cu r, . • O (CD L- C, ri. a, (U C •_ O • °?It 1 ill i C `• O L O O NI's2 .c Q r , c _ a co W D, * = il prO 76 a 411 :§ 0 • . u 1 L b N ...4 a 0 - 0 / 0 t O _E . o0 Z C } t - ..MN + (13 e' C ► . tit O I* _> y CO Ca 45 i CD Q . ii'` • +. CD ► r.. O x'� Q Q "0 Q) -.Z �� \/ L "� ^mil a ; �' a] O Z • o2.2 a 0 a.) O) c 5 .••••••••••••••C •j 4. C 'O of O•, .• 'ors .s • CO IPt t ' , C v t4 0) E 7. " . - -: o 0 --,t".- c ,�. cn a)ci) ca CD • f •c cu r •C13X a = s�., `oiit a3 V fh D .17.2. C . (n ^, c� > r W a 1 4- .� r :4 3 J f 41.1 �, C O C . C ' O lA t O _Nr 1 Y • xa 3 �; I it it i ill 11 i i r CO .• j LL LL 3 : % c . -.. xt , y > �I n > w • �:. _ OO CO N 4.0 N cc Cy C LL < 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • SH 60 To E-470 5WL.5204 (Bashor Barn) Resource Description: This property is located at 3807 Weld CR 48 and contains an historic barn that was owned by the Bashor family for nearly 50 years, from 1928 to 1977. Belva Bashor was the granddaughter of Peter Turner, whose homestead became the town of Berthoud. Eligibility Determination: The historic Bashor barn retains very good integrity and is an important example of agricultural architecture. The Bashor barn therefore qualifies for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, CR 48 would be widened 20 feet west of 1-25 to allow construction of extra pavement and slopes and would taper to the existing roadway width near the Bashor property. The new roadway would be raised in elevation at the 1-25 crossing, but would drop from an elevation of approximately 22 feet above the highway down to the existing roadway elevation within the vicinity of the historic Bashor barn. No direct impacts would occur to the historic property. The change in width and elevation of CR 48 would not diminish or alter the architectural qualities which render the property NRHP- eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bashor barn. • Effect Determination — Package B: Impacts in this area under Package B are virtually identical to those associated with Package A. Under Package B, CR 48 is widened on the west side of 1-25 and the elevation and roadway width tapers down to the elevation and width of the existing roadway in the vicinity of the historic Bashor barn. No direct or indirect impacts would occur to the historic property. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bashor barn. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, CR 48 would be widened 20 feet west of 1-25 to allow construction of extra pavement and slopes and would taper to the existing roadway width near the Bashor barn. The new roadway would be raised in elevation at the 1-25 crossing, but would drop from an elevation of approximately 22 feet above the highway down to the existing roadway elevation within the vicinity of the historic Bashor barn. No direct impacts would occur to the historic property. The change in width and elevation of CR 48 would not diminish or alter the architectural qualities which render the property NRHP- eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Bashor barn. 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm) Resource Description: The Bein Farm is located at 3766 CR 48, near the 1-25 and SH 60 interchange. This property was owned by Fred Bein, a pioneer Berthoud stockman and farmer and one of the most widely-known residents of the Berthoud community until his death in 1933. The property contains a variety of farm buildings constructed in the late 19th century. • The 1915 Map of Irrigated Farms of Northern Colorado showed that the Bein family owned 320 acres. The historic property boundary of this parcel was the land in the east half of Section 10, Township 4N, Range W68. An examination of additional historical maps and Historic Preservation 3.15-123 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • directories shows that the land was still owned by Bein through 1956. Fred Bein was active in farming and stock- raising in northern Colorado. The current size of the remaining historic farm is 288 acres and it is still used for farming. The production of sugar beets was the main reason this farm and many others in northern Colorado developed and this association is an important part of its agricultural history. Sugar beet production in this region started in 1901 with the opening of Great Western's first sugar beet processing facility in northern Colorado at Loveland. Sugar beet production in northern Colorado was strong for over 80 years, but declined significantly after the closure of the Great Western sugar plants in 1985. Since that time, much of the farmland in northern Colorado has been used to produce other crops. The Bein Farm has been producing irrigated crops. The continued association of the Bein farm with the sugar beet industry was lost in the mid-1980s when the Great Western sugar plants closed. In order for farms to continue their existence, they have to make modifications to adjust to many changing factors including weather, the agricultural markets and changes in surrounding land use. The Bein Farm, like most others, has undertaken many modifications including changes in crops produced to keep it in operation over the decades. In spite of these modifications over the decades, the farm still continues in production and is able to convey significance under Criterion A. Eligibility Determination: The Bein Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early ranching and farming in the Berthoud area during the late 19th century. The integrity of the agricultural selling of the Bein farm was compromised in the 1960s when 1-25 was built adjacent to its eastern border. This alteration has affected the feeling and association by the introduction of an interstate highway as a modern non- • agricultural element. The loss of integrity associated with the development of the highway occurred over 40 years ago. Those impacts were evident when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP on August 19, 2007. At that time, the assessment was that the farm buildings and associated farm land still had enough integrity to convey significance under Criterion A. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic farm is located on the west side of the mainline of 1-25, and on the southwest quadrant of the I-25/SH 60 interchange, both of which would be improved under Package A. Package A calls for the widening of I 1-25 in this area to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed wider highway template would require the acquisition and permanent conversion of a 120-foot-wide, 5,600 foot-long strip of cultivated farmland west of the existing southbound 1-25 lanes into new highway and slopes. West of 1-25, SH 60 would be widened to provide for a safe transition from the interchange ramps to the existing roadway section. The new SH 60 roadway would consist of four general lanes and turning lanes at the interchange, tapering back to two general lanes on the west side of the existing driveway to the farm building complex. The combined 1-25 widening along the length of the Bein Farm, re-alignment of the southbound on-ramp from the SH 60 interchange, and the widening and reconfiguring of a tapered section of SH 60 on the west side of this interchange would cause direct impacts to 17.94 acres along the east and north edges of the property. This comprises approximately 6.2 percent of the historic farm's total 288.45 acres. No farm buildings would be directly impacted (see Figure 3.15-60). • Historic Preservation 3.15-124 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. There would be no change to the historic access to this property. The retaining wall along the southbound off-ramp is located on the opposite side of the interchange from the historic farm and would not result in an indirect impact to the property. This would not diminish the function, alignment, attributes, or setting that contribute to the historic integrity or render the farm NRHP-eligible. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. The direct and indirect impacts to the historic farm building complex along SH 60 that would occur under Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Package B calls for the widening of 1-25 in this area to accommodate two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The resulting direct impacts from widening of 1-25 are similar to Package A, but require a modified southbound 1-25 on-ramp to connect with the wider TEL section in Package B. Impacts resulting from modifications to SH 60 are the same as Package A. Total direct impacts to the farm would be 20.04 acres along the east and north edges of the property, comprising approximately seven percent of the historic farm's total 288.45 acres. No farm buildings would be directly impacted (see Figure 3.15-61). Please see the Effect Determination discussion • under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character- defining features associated with the farm. Indirect effects would be the same as with Package A. The direct and indirect impacts to the historic farm building complex along SH 60 that would occur under Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: This historic farm is located on the west side of the mainline of 1-25, and on the southwest quadrant of the 1-25/SH 60 interchange, both of which would be improved under the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative calls for the widening of 1-25 in this area to accommodate three general purpose lanes and one TEL in each direction. The proposed wider highway template would require the acquisition and permanent conversion of a strip of cultivated farmland west of the existing southbound 1-25 lanes into the transportation infrastructure. • Historic Preservation 3.15-125 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-60 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm) — Package A411 i. LEGEND ' 4 I �� .jt: , II ' Historical Resources _ s i 1 1. i Package A Resource Impact V R i ' „ j � _ Package A ROW Boundary : • --- - --= ,:=x_60 . 1 — ..-,7 r — - , /1.! • 5WL.5203 Property Boundary -IC k li I r Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails . 1 '.T.,4, . § Roadway Features — Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries `.., Guardrails � • � ' ! I se `i � Ali '1 31 /V,i, talIIIIMIallit I 1 PI r i I tI I I �ii , Area = 781,428 Sq. Ft Acres = 17.94 1-- - 4. i \ T l i �' leii --IT I �I - f �� I I v... r I i • fr.‘ J . NI I , i 4Location Map �` • r;' V 1 ip 700 ��' .__ ___ r �r ii II I Feet / • JJ North � 'srfl `� � k ., i�:_-, —, ID Historic Preservation 3.15-126 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 E1S 0 information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-61 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm) — Package B LEGEND t s , pi 1 Historical Resources ,. , ! a Package B Resource Impact TT . , � - Package B ROW Boundary -• I5WL 5203 Property Boundary 1 Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails 1 «j 'I t , / 4 Roadway Features �. Retaining Wall 4 1 j /,'1 / Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails !? Iri�. i /• 10 iii # I / /AI at— r kt t • it I . . v Area = 873, 197 Sq. Ft Acres = 2a04 I i:i I. •- f I ill i - I II I • I ,\ l I ._ - 1 I- IT , 1 '144 I - ! / 1 1 / j 32 I 1 1 1 v- ! 2 i i III . i II 1 I; I i 4 # 1 , t 0 Location Map - - I - '' 700 Lmi. I Feet North *;;:-'`'" I 1 " ilij IL Historic Preservation 3.15-127 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • West of 1-25, SH 60 would be widened to provide for a safe transition from the interchange ramps to the existing roadway section. The new SH 60 roadway would consist of four general lanes and turning lanes at the interchange, tapering back to two general lanes on the west side of the existing driveway to the farm building complex. The combined 1-25 widening along the length of the Bein Farm, re-alignment of the southbound on-ramp from the SH 60 interchange, and the widening and reconfiguring of a tapered section of SH 60 on the west side of this interchange would cause direct impacts to 16.10 acres along the east and north edges of the property. This comprises approximately 5.6 percent of the farm's total 288.45 acres. No farm buildings would be directly impacted (see Figure 3.15-62). There would be no change to the historic access to this property. The retaining wall along the southbound off-ramp is located on the opposite side of the interchange from the historic farm and would not result in an indirect impact to the property. The impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur along the eastern edge of the farm adjacent to 1-25 where the original integrity of the farm was compromised with the highway's intrusion on the visual landscape some 40 years ago. There would be no materially different visual perception of the farm from the Preferred Alternative. The farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the farm would continue to convey significance in terms of its association with early agricultural development in Weld County. The farm would continue on as it was in 2007 when determined eligible for the NRHP except for the removal of approximately 16.10 acres in a strip of land along portions of the • north and east borders of the farm. In recent growing seasons, the Bein farm land was irrigated cropland. The center pivot irrigation system sits on the property today. The land was planted to the edge of their property which abuts the 1-25 right-of-way on the east and the CR 38 right-of-way on the north. All of the 16.10 acres that are to be taken for the Preferred Alternative are currently used as irrigated cropland. The Bein Farm, in spite of a loss of these 16.10 acres of land for the improvement of 1-25, would still convey significance under Criterion A. FHWA, FTA and CD0T have determined that the loss of an additional 16.10 acres of land for construction of this project would result in no adverse effect to this farm because the characteristics that define the integrity of the rural landscape would not be compromised. The location, design, materials and workmanship of the farm would remain the same. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any of the farm buildings. The setting would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative. The mountains to the west of the farm continue to be a key element of its historic selling. The setting of the land to the north of the Bein farm has changed. What was once all agricultural land has been developed over the last decades into commercial and industrial development. The interstate highway on the east has been there for over forty years and was a part of the setting when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP. The feeling would remain one of an active farm established in the early part of the 20th century. The association is still strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. The Bein Farm was determined eligible under Criterion A for its association with 20th century Weld County farming. That association would not change as a result of the Preferred Alternative. • Historic Preservation 3.15-128 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-62 5WL.5203 (Bein Farm) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND -�. -, I I I ' l Historical Resources ' I si - Preferred Alternative Resource Impact �. �` Mw — Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 60 X11 I -- 5WL.5203 Property Boundary - i i I Iil Preferred Alternative Bridge Guardrails '�� as EOP , II r l Roadway Features �. Retaining Wall III i, Parcel Boundaries �, 4 Guardrails t ..i• ill if 1 4 r /4i' i . i • f� ,. , I I IlliiraT - i • , , t , r�L1 Area =701,217 Sq. Ft I Acres = 16.10 ... •` \\ itt Umfl I44t..& I=. ' a ' I . , ..... .7 ` i = ,, as.. .. i I t . 1 \ Le, 1 , 1 i pL .I � 1 Location Map s �_ _ `� ti ,. i in _ _WGR46 1 _ - , ...'� c 0 700 i .. :-v.• ; i r• �J l Feet North ' . l � t ' 0 . . __ _ . ____ _ _ _ _ Historic Preservation 3.15-129 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence) Resource Description: The ditch crosses 1-25 along the south edge of CR 48/SH 60 and is conveyed underneath the 1-25 ramps and mainline highway lanes inside a 660-foot-long concrete culvert. The ditch segment is 2,456 feet long, 20 feet wide, earthen, 5 feet deep and has rip-rapped banks. Handy and Home Supply ditches combine to flow into a concrete diversion gate that funnels water under SH 60, west of 1-25. The grade drops off steeply eastward from 1-25 into 3 drop boxes. Eligibility Determination: The entire Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Segment 5WL.3149.1 fails to support the integrity of the greater site because it has been modified by recent development. Effects Determination — Package A: Package A would require modification of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60/CR 48 intersection turning radius (see Figure 3.15-63). The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot-extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60/CR 48. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 and frontage road and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. Effects Determination — Package B: Package B would require modification of the grated • culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60/CR 48 intersection turning radius (see Figure 3.15-63). The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot-extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60/CR 48. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of 1-25 and the frontage road and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. Effects Determination — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative would require modification of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60/CR 48 intersection turning radius (see Figure 3.15-64). The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 60-foot- extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60/CR 48. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 and frontage road and because the Preferred Alternative improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. • Historic Preservation 3.15-130 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-63 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence) — Package A and B LEGEND I TT .� \ , ` � �• , Historical Resources • IO fr \ �, Packages A & B Resource Impact "` 9 p w ;� m Packages A & BROW Boundary1 \ - IL I 5WL.3149.1 Property Boundarynii II ` - Packages EOP � Bridge /Culvert l �_ _ N.. Roadway Features p.... Retaining Wall ■ , C Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails . el i j i II i • . . Total new culvertrit$ New culvert intake grate modification would be 720 feet long - of approximately 10 feet 6 • • ■lilt I - Ik ------- F ....._ - i soli CL--------- j - ' — — ,eC (I . 0 ---Th '\ -.'- - . $ r . , k • I • .t '1 g - / � � \ • ;r J X, I , rxisting culvert 660 feet long ` ; l+r' r 50 foot long culvert extension w-_: 'i � y : w ^ t f t / M< ,r l 1 1:;:t II NB * , SB I . � \ ( I A . i /, Location Map ' r - n i - . I 0 200 Ill I limmi I Feet N® S L -- ----4- - -.,�-� - --. Historic Preservation 3.15-131 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-64 5WL.3149.1 (Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence) — Preferred III Alternative I LEGEND ,I . Historical Resources I. i • 1 - Packages PA Resource Impact 25 ' t t , Packages PA ROW Boundary 1 SWL.3149.1 Property Boundary , Iii1/4\kic Package PA EOP IN—. Bridge /Culvert Roadway Features B.. Retaining Wall ; r C Parcel Boundaries 4. Guardrails h r t j ,lt f Total new culvert would be 764 feet long New culvert intake grate modification of approximately 44 feet . - , 60 I ,: . , r,, . yn 0 all 0, 1 I �` , lido i I � I „ r / C • ' r i I xic.Uriq 'ilk I'1 i WI feel 10119 / ,r y ear k •\, . 1 -'{G(.1 toot long culvert extension { -1 ,t, LH ,) I I. i i - c i - NB A ' �� ` 5 B A : I ___ rl-ocation Map, � _ ' ,. `\, 1 o 200 ; . ' ` . imi I Feet North all Historic Preservation 3.15-132 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 5WL.864 (Great Western Railway Buda Siding) Resource Description : Buda Siding consists of the original beet scale house and platform scale that was built by the Great Western Railway (GWR) in 1903. The GWR was associated with the Great Western Sugar Company, which owned sugar factories in Colorado, including ones at Longmont and Loveland . Buda was a railroad "beet dump" or receiving and shipping station for the local farming community. It also served as a passenger ticket office. Eligibility Determination : This site is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the historic GWR and the sugar beet industry in Colorado. Effect Determination — Package A: This site lies well outside the 1-25 corridor improvements planned under Package A, and would not experience any direct or indirect impacts either to the rail siding or the associated sugar beet weigh station . FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination - Package B : This site lies well outside the 1-25 corridor improvements planned under Package B, and would not experience any direct or indirect impacts either to the rail siding or the associated sugar beet weigh station . FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination - Preferred Alternative: This site lies well outside the 1-25 corridor improvements planned under the Preferred Alternative, and would not experience any direct or indirect impacts either to the rail siding or the associated sugar beet weigh station. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.2985 (Little Thompson River Bridge No. C-17-BN) Resource Description : The historic Little Thompson River Bridge (CDOT Structure No. No.C- 17-BN ) is a steel, rigid connected camelback pony truss structure located on the frontage road adjacent to 1-25 near the SH 56 and 1-25 interchange. The structure was built across the Little - Thompson River in 1938 , prior to construction of 1-25. • . ' 1 _ ir Eligibility Determination : This historic bridge is an intact, early example of a f f. ^ ;. Y. - • common bridge type, the camelback pony truss, and was listed on the NRHP . under Criterion C in 2002 . Little Thompson River Bridge Effect Determination — Package A: This historic bridge carries the existing 1-25 east frontage road over the Little Thompson River. The east frontage road would remain two lanes, but would be widened to improve shoulders north and south of this bridge, up to the bridge approach slabs. The historic bridge structure would be retained and utilized , and no physical changes to the bridge abutments, decking or truss structure would occur. Because the setting and use of the bridge would remain unaffected by this minor widening, no indirect effects to the property are expected . Historic Preservation 3.15-133 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in a finding of no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Same as Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Same as Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm) Resource Description: This historic farm is located at 17820 East 1-25 Frontage Road, near CR 38. The site contains various farm buildings, a reservoir, and farmland used by the Olson family who were early settlers in this area. The Ballinger Reservoir has an early water appropriation date from 1887 making it one of the early irrigation features in the area. The site boundary is based upon the historic boundary of the Olson Farm, and spans 1-25. The boundary encompasses 155.37 acres, although 13.7 acres comprising the existing CDOT 1-25 right-of-way is considered a noncontributing portion of the site. The home was built in the early 1940s by Emil and Ethel Olson on a site just north of the Ballinger Reservoir, which is over 100 years old and has historically been used for irrigation and livestock watering. Emil and his parents came to the area on adjoining lands over 100 years ago where they engaged in farming. The family partnership raised wheat on • approximately 6000 acres in the Frederick—Erie area during World War II as well as continuing to farm the family acreage (wheat, corn, beets, alfalfa, as well as feeding cattle) near Mead. After the 1950's drought and devastating prices, Emil and Ethel's son, Gilman, mortgaged the farm, invested in his good friend's road building business, and went to work full-time for that construction company. After that time Gilman's sons Gary and Roger managed and worked the farm summers, weekends and after school. 1-25 was constructed alongside the farm in 1960-61. This was a major event since the freeway actually passed through and displaced the entire family farm headquarters where Emil and Ethel lived on the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy 87 (1-25) and WCR 38. The farm buildings that were of value were moved to various other farms and Emil and Ethel moved to Longmont in 1958, as retired farmers traditionally did in those days. Their house was moved, one mile south and half mile east, where it was again remodeled and still stands today. Their barn was moved to the farmstead at 17820 1-25 Access Road. Gilman and his wife Margaret subsequently acquired adjacent lands on the west side of 1-25 which have been developed into a residential subdivision. Their sons, Roger and Gary Olson, followed business career paths. They have stayed involved in the farms, through not actively farming, as the farms are now rented to others. The integrity of the agricultural setting of the Olson Farm was compromised in the 1960s when 1-25 was built through the center of the historic farm boundaries. This alteration has affected the feeling and association by the introduction of an interstate highway as a modern non- • agricultural element. Historic Preservation 3.15-134 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Eligibility Determination: The loss of integrity associated with the development of the highway occurred over 40 years ago. Those impacts were evident when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP on August 19, 2007. At that time, the assessment was that the farm was significant for the Ballinger Reservoir on the property which has an early water appropriation date making it one of the early water/irrigation features in the area. The farm was assessed as significant under Criterion A for its role in the agricultural development of Weld County. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for three general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing 1-25 east frontage road would stay in its present alignment, including its crossing of CR 38, but the area needed for the frontage road turning lanes and paved shoulders would be widened along the west edge of the eastern portion of the Olson Farm property. Direct impacts to this portion of the site would be confined to a strip of land 2,740 feet long, and approximately 110 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe of slope for the east frontage road which would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent direct impacts to the Ballinger Reservoir (a contributing feature of the NRHP-eligible farm) located mid-way along the east side of the frontage road. A total of 3.99 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct impacts under Package A (see Figure 3.15-65). A strip of farmland measuring approximately 140 feet wide and 2,740 feet long located west of • 1-25, would be buried below pavement and fill slopes for the widened southbound 1-25 lanes. This would result in 8.75 acres impacted due to the western re-alignment and widening of the 1-25 roadways. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package A is 12.74 acres, which comprises approximately nine percent of the total site area of 141.67 acres. Increased highway and frontage road traffic resulting from Package A improvements would generate noise levels one decibel more than the No-Action Alternative. This increase in noise is barely perceptible and would not affect the characteristics which have rendered the property NRHP-eligible. Since the 1960's when 1-25 was constructed, modern transportation elements have bisected the historic farm. Modern residential subdivisions have recently been constructed adjacent to the western property boundary. The additional 1-25 and frontage road widening, installation of a new retaining wall near Ballinger Reservoir, and modification of CR 38 overpass would increase the amount of intrusive transportation elements within the property boundary leading to an indirect effect on the historic property, however; these transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the historic setting which renders this property NRHP-eligible. Temporary effects due to installation of the new bridge across 1-25, roadway widening and the retaining wall at Ballinger Reservoir would likely require a temporary easement on portions of the historic property for equipment access, haul roads and other construction activities. The farm would remain operational and measures to protect the property from erosion, dust and water-borne sediment dispersal would be implemented. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected • areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. Historic Preservation 3.15-135 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation Figure 3.15-65 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm) — Package AIII 'OM LEGEND t% Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A ROW Boundary 5WL 5198 Property Boundary 1 Package A EOP \ i. Roadway Features ... Retaining Wall - Parcel Boundaries Ap,J Guardrails imp. .-- y�R WCR 3fi • ,l /IQ i I il S r - ' • i 1', ""Alk • 1 (ii i Area = 173,764 Sq. Ft Y Acres = 3.99 ' t . 4 Area = 381,085 Sq. Ft it Acres = 8.75 H . t hila ...- � III„ r . 3.:•-e . • I , - it /A. li ki„,„..„ , ,, I , '.11 • *, • \ . - 4Ballinger Reservoir I , � r " • i ,... a • 1 �, r i; � t i a r � r . Total impacts of �i' • �,, , 12.74 acres z 6 f ,r r �+ , -) * 4 leillie.. .. iii ' -. �� I - r _ •' I ii .' 4 • 4 y. i 1,l n oy A �/ Z- I�� } Y Location Map 1II,, - . JIrte; N4 f •'s, I ' rii -- a _ t.w . _ . 11u . 0 400 ...a _ - � ® �J Feet _ _ North r null Air _ - I 111 Historic Preservation 3.15-136 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation Due to the site's existing bisection by the wide 1-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Olson Farm. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for two general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated lane in each direction. Direct impacts to the site under Package B are similar in nature to those associated with Package A. Direct impacts to this portion of the site would be confined to a strip of land 2,740 feet long, and approximately 120 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe-of-slope for the east frontage road which would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent direct impacts to the Ballinger Reservoir. A total of 3.99 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct impacts under Package B (see Figure 3.15-66). A strip of farmland measuring approximately 145 feet wide and 2,740 feet long located west of 1-25, would be buried below pavement and fill slopes for the widened southbound 1-25 lanes. This would result in 8.82 acres impacted due to the western re-alignment and widening of the 1-25 roadways. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package B is 12.81 acres, which comprises approximately nine percent of the total site area of 141.67 acres. Indirect impacts would be the same as Package A. Please see the Effect Determination discussion under the Preferred • Alternative for information regarding the projects effects to character-defining features associated with the farm. Due to the site's existing bisection by the wide 1-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Olson Farm. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for three general purpose lanes and one TEL in each direction. The existing 1-25 east frontage road would stay in its present alignment, including its crossing of CR 38, but the area needed for the frontage road turning lanes and paved shoulders would be widened along the west edge of the eastern portion of the Olson Farm property. Direct impacts to this portion of the site would be confined to a small strip of land at WCR 38 at the north end of the property. This impact corresponds to the new toe of slope for the east frontage road which would bury the land currently located adjacent to this portion of the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent direct impacts to the Ballinger Reservoir(a contributing feature of the NRHP-eligible farm) located mid-way along the east side of the frontage road. A total of 0.66 acre of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct impacts under the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3.15-67). A strip of farmland located west of 1-25, would be buried below pavement and fill slopes for the widened southbound 1-25 lanes. This would result in 3.97 acres impacted due to the western re-alignment and widening of the 1-25 roadways. The total area subject to direct impacts under the Preferred Alternative is 4.63 acres, which comprises approximately three percent of the total site area of 141.67 acres. These 4.63 acres • are not a character-defining part of this farm. The strip of land on the west boundary of the property is land adjacent to the 1-25 frontage road. That land is currently used for hay production. It is part of a small plot of land that separates the subdivision developed by the Historic Preservation 3.15-137 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-66 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm) — Package B • LEGEND Ik . .; Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary i, 5WL 5198 Property Boundary Package B EOP Roadway Features Illa Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails 1 ! _ - - WCR 38 t• . .. ) - HI lir ' ... , .., . . ..• . ..... . ar-............z........icim,___,. , , ..: . F - mt_ _ ,__., . _._ , _ __ . „ i . . . . rev, . ., . ., . . ‘. . . 7 1 w ' . , -• . - t t ,- 'ilwillit 0`"i • • Area = 384.225 Sq. Ft e ' • ' Area = 173,766 Sq. Ft { .. ,r III 1 Acres = 8.82 Acres = 3.99 iplie • 1` r1 r,. ; r At A0- t -----"J-tHjilli._%i Ballinger Reservoir t j t it. . . a 1r ire& _ Totalimpactsof rI .81 acres ', P, - . i .� .�i S1_4.11 i iActa.,:is • i ' i De.: Location Map, -- _ r ,0 400 t Feet x =_` A=_ . North . . um • _ III.., lia"... Historic Preservation 3.15-138 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.15-67 5WL.5198 (Olson Farm) — Preferred Alternative I ! 1 V • LEGEND Historical Resources ' I Preferred Alternative Resource Impact �1 Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 4 , 5WL.5198 Property Boundary Preferred Alternative EOP Roadway Features F- Retaining Watl ,r Parcel Boundaries S, Guardrails iavaimo.r WCR 38 r— t ' Z S J 411,01 4 • 1 {� / ( s�. -"Ns . ia p4 ! 4I �S'" � 1r � II 111 La, ,, ,,, . 14., Area = 172,882 Sq. Ft Area = 28,679 Sq. Ft ` - t , 1 Acres = 0.66 Acres = 3.97 I . . k),‘ , . e ' eist • , _.. .'; ' i • \ ` . . .. ci. • a -, - -- `t j e�_ '� . _ Ballinger Reservoir " - Hi — {9— ''k - L_ I \ � . . , ' .. �. Total impacts of . . i -I-__ b _• 4.63 acres ./L ,. 1, l 4rrlf 1 : , , .L., W la --. i H . ‘ 7 'g \ % 't Location Map lr1NJ 'J 1 • l . I . V\ i r % . .. ...•.` i• , 0 400 a. maws, �■I Feet Teti4 North ,iR Historic Preservation 3.15-139 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Olson's from 1-25. The strip of land on the east side of the East 1-25 Frontage Road, north of the Olson house, is currently vacant. It appears it was a pasture at one time. The remaining strip of land on the east side of 1-25 is part of the front lawns of several non-historic rural residences. Increased highway and frontage road traffic resulting from the Preferred Alternative improvements would generate noise levels two decibels more than the No-Action Alternative. This increase in noise is barely perceptible and would not affect the characteristics which have rendered the property NRHP-eligible. Since the 1960's when 1-25 was constructed, modern transportation elements have bisected the historic farm. The Olson's have developed modern residential subdivisions adjacent to the existing western property boundary. The additional 1-25 and frontage road widening, installation of a new retaining wall near Ballinger Reservoir, and modification of CR 38 overpass would increase the amount of intrusive transportation elements within the property boundary leading to an indirect effect on the historic property, however; these transportation improvements would not affect the historic association of this property with the agricultural development of Weld County which renders this property NRHP- eligible. Temporary effects due to installation of the new bridge across 1-25, roadway widening and the retaining wall at Ballinger Reservoir would likely require a temporary easement on portions of the historic property for equipment access, haul roads and other construction activities. The farm would remain operational and measures to protect the property from erosion, dust and water-borne sediment dispersal would be implemented. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected • areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The setting and feeling of this property have been changed with the 1960s development of 1-25 through the center of the farm's historic boundary. The association with agriculture still exists. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource because the land to be taken on the east side of 1-25 is not being used for agricultural purposes and there would be no direct effect to the Ballinger Reservoir. The land on the west side of 1-25 is serving as a buffer between a subdivision and the Interstate. In addition, the Olson family has developed a subdivision on part of the farmland and hopes to develop more in the future and they are now renting their land out to others for farming. 5WL.1978 (Rademacher/Hilgers Residence) Resource Description: The Rademacher/Hilgers residence is located at 3865 SH 66. This property contains a Craftsman Style house built in 1920 that remains largely intact. Eligibility Determination: This early 20th century farmhouse retains very good integrity, and is an important example of Craftsman Style residential architecture in a rural setting in Weld County. The property qualifies for the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, I-25 would be reconfigured for three general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing I-25 ramps would be rebuilt under a currently planned and programmed interchange project. There would be no changes to ramp widths or alignments, thus there would be no direct impacts to the historic property by future • 1-25 mainline improvements associated with Package A. Historic Preservation 3.15-140 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts to the historic farmhouse and the qualities that render it NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Rademacher/Hilgers Residence. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for two general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated lane in each direction. All widening and lane additions would be constructed within the center median of the existing 1-25 footprint. The existing 1-25 ramps would be rebuilt under a currently planned and programmed interchange project. There would be no changes to ramp widths or alignments, thus there would be no direct impacts to the historic property by future 1-25 mainline improvements associated with Package B. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts to the historic farmhouse and the qualities that render it NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Rademacher/Hilgers Residence. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated TEL in each direction. All widening and lane additions would be constructed within the center median of the existing 1-25 footprint. The existing 1-25 ramps would be rebuilt under a currently planned and programmed interchange project. There would be no changes to ramp widths or alignments, thus there would be no direct impacts to the historic property by future 1-25 mainline improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative. • Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts to the historic farmhouse and the qualities that render it NRHP-eligible, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the Rademacher/Hilgers Residence. 5WL1975.1 (Last Chance Ditchl Resource Description: This 1.04 mile-long segment of the Last Chance Ditch generally runs perpendicular to 1-25 and crosses the frontage road and highway. The entire earthen ditch is approximately five miles long. Its channel is approximately 10 feet wide. This historic ditch is currently conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road in CBCs. Recently, the original ditch east of 1-25 was realigned. The levees and banks along both sides of the ditch areas are covered with grass and sparse riparian vegetation. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The Last Chance Ditch was officially determined eligible for the NRHP by OAHP in 2003. The entire ditch (5WL.1975) is eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Although this ditch segment (5WL.1975.1) has recently been realigned east of 1-25, the integrity of location and design remains pristine within the protected rural setting of St. Vrain State Park on the west side of 1-25. The segment within the project APE (5WL.1975.1) retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be • maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the ditch would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT Historic Preservation 3.15-141 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane. The existing east frontage road would be realigned to the east. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the ditch would occur under Package B. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the middle to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated TEL. The existing east frontage road would be realigned to the east. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the ditch would occur under the Preferred Alternative. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.1974.1 (Rural Ditch) Resource Description: The entire Rural Ditch is approximately 4 miles long. Two segments of the ditch are present within the APE (see Figure 3.15-68). Segment 5WL.1974.1 crosses 1-25 diagonally from southwest to northeast immediately north of SH 119, passing under SH 119 and 1-25 in two existing culverts. The segment length is 3,327 feet, and is a 10 feet wide earthen • ditch. Segment 5WL.1974.3 of the historic Rural Ditch crosses northwest to southeast within the project area. This segment (5WL.1974.3) intercepts waters of Idaho Creek at the southwest edge of the APE. The excavated 5-foot-deep, earthen ditch segment is 1,253 feet long and 20 feet wide. Both banks of the ditch areas are covered with grass. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The entire ditch (5WL.1974) was determined to be not eligible in 1993. The entire Rural Ditch is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado. The 5WL.1974.3 follows the original historic alignment of the ditch, and therefore supports the eligibility of the entire linear resource. The segment 5WL.1974.1 is modified by adjacent development and road crossings at SH 119 and 1-25 and does not support eligibility of the entire resource. Effects Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Rural Ditch. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.3 — Package A: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment. Approximately 130 feet of open ditch would need to be placed in a culvert beneath the new railroad • embankment, ballast, bed and tracks (see Figure 3.15-69). Historic Preservation 3.15-142 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 3.15-68 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch) — Segments Intersecting Project APE LEGEND * Historic Ditches scr :----` ~ Study Corridors �� ,•\ /\/ Highways :�I `85; � ,/\/ Arterial Roads r!/ ,�. Cr j Regional Study Area / 1 City Boundaries ! Fort Collins Ia \..—___ ` s Cities & Towns in Project Area I i- 257! • F. . uk7mi 0 r See, ance Ea'ur • 287 ! 1Y, a,A 1 I ',rem- 34 � � t ",.., Loveland i1 AM\ I 'a c°, f�W21-1 f w sane . : bhrstavn / 0 AnaikEn 85 / 1 i ; I / i MA f/ r • Platteville I - 5WL.1974.1 I ongtoont ' 1 41— I lone I 5WL.1974.3 j vt�ar v /' 0 Faestcne ! / 237 • a Fredwick ! /-/ N. 0 Damn fro rU�1Y1 • fR / Env 1 0 • 7 Wattsrrt0(I !! Boulder _ I 1_\iciL to .a!tr.•s;e � `N E.rt' Ir / N. Ekl ` % 'Hurhtlta.. j• �\ 36 287 i , 9)• Z '\ / ( j r - r = A Dern e;% - t .6.,—' . ® / • �_ r / / Le4�..r 0 2 4 6 8 10 �...� Miles North \Th1 ti ) Ill Historic Preservation 3.15-143 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation Figure 3.15-69 5WL.1974.3 (Rural Ditch) — Package A IIII LEGEND - t • . _ ' it . f Historical Resources - ( Package A Resource Impact `' T. Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL. 1974.3 Property Boundary rill Package A Comm Rail Footprint C R 2050 „� II Commuter Rail Design i t i AM ` ,.I al Parcel Boundaries il--. Bridge ' Culvert VIIi4 ,is ,/ r I 41# ex . v ,... 4-.... ,- -• ' ,_,.t..., 1 ; i _ ii '• ;14 - . ' . ' 4. I • -4,- 1 4.4 Sett - Y r ' s e It ir A iii j . , .. 110 4 _ III / ..PJ . � t. I T 1`+]•1111• if . Open ditch would be placed i inside of a new culvert; r _ '' _ - WITht - - '- 4 130 Linear Feet Impacted 1 h 1 • Existing Culvert i 36 ft long �, , •� I II4 L f, I O OD t, 1 i *". 7. a a 4 . 'lei I ` I / t .1 i / Y a i 1 ,r it _ ) I i ) ,. !tip (4 7 G Tit I � I, ! ,• f Location Mar': i 61 a \. __ _ _ V. d t it --4 lilrl. r�tI — tom.; 4 . — - - n t - to ' r 0 200 !:I• �� ! Feet North . . III '' Historic Preservation 3.15-144 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Installation of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Installation of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.3 — Preferred Alternative: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment. Approximately 108 feet of open ditch would need to be placed in a culvert beneath the new railroad embankment, ballast, bed and tracks (see Figure 3.15-70). Installation of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. • Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.1 — Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and results in no impacts. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.1 — Package B: Under Package B modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. Impacts to segment 5WL.1974.1 — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new TELs in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Preferred Alternative. Summary Effects Determination: Package A: Under Package A 130 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment locality. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment has previously been compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT • have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the historic resource 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch). Historic Preservation 3.15-145 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B: Because no direct or indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic resource 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch). Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative 108 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment locality. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment has been previously compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the historic resource 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch). 5WL.3146.1 (Flume Ditch) Resource Description: The ditch crosses under 1-25 in a CBC at MP 239.15, about 1 mile south of SH 119. The earthen ditch runs through a business park and has been recently dredged and banks burned. The segment is 1,371-foot-long and 10 feet wide. Eligibility Determination: In 2001 SHPO agreed that the Rural Ditch is not NRHP-eligible. Effects Determination — Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and would not have impacts. Effects Determination — Package B: Under Package B modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway there would be no additional impact to the ditch • segment. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. Effects Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new TELs in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by the Preferred Alternative. • Historic Preservation 3.15-146 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information. cooperation, transportation. Figure 3.15-70 5WL.1974.3 (Rural Ditch) — Preferred Alternative 4 LEGEND , ,i • • — "_ - , . Historical Resources 4. It it 41 i - Preferred Alternative Resource Impact to •'•�` a r( i r y i M. T• ��- ^s Preferred Alternative Comm Rail I P L Nom- 1 ROW Boundary rte, ¢_ , i ' ai‘l_ 5WL. 1974.3 Resource Boundary 4..--...-.W-.. CR 2050 _ Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint - — _ r. �ai Amike_ Commuter Rail Design'~ N * • �et ' � , , 4., _ ' I �I Parcel Boundaries � . Bridge Guardrails �► -- — �;� ?'. riii �' "� ' t.t. St I D'tea � fir* - /1 °'r , L 81 d ar r"-_441 i - — .H-2 ,1, -, .47 os a. 1 * IF '_ 1 "I ' ' ri- AI t i. 4 ....._ __ r • . , l ' _. . 4 1 . I Ili - ,... se- III _ _ , Open ditch would be placed 'r inside of a new culvert; b; ' a_ 0I 108 Linear Feet Impacted — # r • - 1 _ . . flit It k_., i Existing Culvert I ,� 36 ft long ,til"--- lr lIF . \ / r--- . le i is U , pi 3 will as TillikkH I .— / / alligaPiTh 1 tr i 1 1. Avi�_ • r _ �' F ap R Location M' p. -- 0 200 /� I `mmiml I Feet North — • ye . • a r 0 4Nia - . P I` Historic Preservation 3.15-147 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch) Resource Description: The overall length of the Lower Boulder Ditch is 19 miles. It was originally built in 1859, but was widened in 1954 (see Figure 3.15-71). A significant portion of the ditch (5WL.1970.1) runs within the project corridor and crosses under 1-25 in a 490-foot- long CBC, 3,500 feet north of SH 52. The 1.3 mile long earthen ditch has steep pitched banks, is 26 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Banks are grass covered except at culvert faces where it is rip-rapped. The area has parallel access roads along both banks and several pump jacks nearby. Segment 5WL.1970.7 generally runs perpendicular to and crosses under WCR 7. Segment 5WL.1970.7 of the earthen irrigation ditch is approximately 31 feet wide, 12 feet deep and 574 feet long. The portion of the ditch that crosses under County Road 7 conveys the ditch in a culvert. Grass and riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The Lower Boulder Ditch (5WL.1970) was determined to be eligible for the NRHP in 1993 under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Segment 1970.7 of the ditch within the APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5WL.1970.1 has been modified and no longer retains the qualities that support the eligibility of the entire resource. Effects Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments • passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Lower Boulder Ditch. Impacts 5WL.1970.1 — Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and results in no impact. Impacts 5WL.1970.1 — Package B: Under Package B, modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes and a transit station and parking facility in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway and station improvements, there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. A parking facility and water quality basin would be located south of the existing ditch alignment and would not cause any direct impact. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. Impacts 5WL.1970.1 — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new TELs. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway improvements, there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. A water quality basin would be located south of the existing ditch alignment and would not cause any direct impact. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by the Preferred Alternative. • Historic Preservation 3.15-148 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation • Figure 3.15-71 5WL.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch) — Segments Intersecting Project APE -•1 LEGEND i * Historic Ditches I - -- l Welingla, `\• A/ Study Corridors • 1 •�• \ 85 /"/ Highways "/ Arterial Roads / I. [J Regional Study Area ' � City Boundaries 1 Fort Collins � r a Cities & Towns in Project Area i A It \% 1 2 7 I / t—la rcnrath a Eatu, �_.. xti��nce i I 287 I _ lucerne �` 392 , I (. i Greeley 34 i 11 263 M I 1 Loveland N u, 1.134 iLa C., , • Cemn , ilEr e y Jatu�r 4., / . I gIha,a O MIIlke, $5 /% L 1 I • [ikrasi III I t i ! _ 0 K ad //` a.aaaa. Platteville I � 1 I mutton! ' I ' ti Ion., Wei mar�tmar 0 1 i o rireston . 5WL. 1970.1 rewot rr�- r: i �: _�4;- { 0 i,xai icrt Loon : 32 5WL.1970.7 , o ty„I\trt:! 1 ra / Erie I Fi- I Wi ttt.t itm.J Boulder 7 I 1t 0 .aterrtb• N`WII = \,'\, J�i41i 1 ! r• t// • N. Virfiallelp 36zsg \\ Ili 4ntJi • \ / 1.:.;_E_ \\ %. DenveI Sins ( a� I w ht._ —7-6%-------N , i _. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 \re-V, `J_ - itttttttttt�i `I l Mlles N o r t h *),\„\t"--.N%‘ Historic Preservation 3.15-149 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts 5WL.1970.7 — Package A: This historic ditch segment passes beneath WCR 7 via a culvert, and the proposed new commuter rail corridor closely follows the west side of this road. The new railroad line would cross the east-west trending ditch segment via a new bridge structure, the piers of which would be placed outside the limits of this irrigation channel (see Figure 3.15-72). The presence of the new bridge would not substantially affect the setting or attributes which render the ditch historic. Impacts 5WL.1970.7 — Preferred Alternative: This historic ditch segment passes beneath WCR 7 via a culvert, and the proposed new commuter rail corridor closely follows the west side of this road. The new railroad line would cross the east-west trending ditch segment via a new bridge structure, the piers of which would be placed outside the limits of this irrigation channel (see Figure 3.15-73). The presence of the new bridge would not substantially affect the setting or attributes which render the ditch historic. Summary Effects Determination: Package A: A new bridge at WCR 7 would create approximately 35 feet of new overhead coverage of the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would occur during bridge construction. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would not be compromised by construction of the bridge, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic resource 5LR.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch). Package B: There would be no direct or indirect impacts resulting from Package B improvements. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no • historic properties affected with respect to the Lower Boulder Ditch (5WL.1970). Preferred Alternative: A new bridge at WCR 7 would create approximately 35 feet of new overhead coverage of the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would occur during bridge construction. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would not be compromised by construction of the bridge, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic resource 5LR.1970 (Lower Boulder Ditch). • Historic Preservation 3.15-150 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportationIII . Figure 3.15-72 5WL.1970.7 (Lower Boulder Ditch) — Package A LEGEND Historical Resources IPackage A Resource Impact - IPackage A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL. 1970.7 Property Boundary y _ • Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design _r 1 Parcel Boundaries MI—. Bridge Culvert 1 r- ► ,, o Sif \ �V _ .r f� �' il 1. M I Existing culvert . ,s4,„.., V AIWA t._ _.. ..... ..__ . ma . . ,.-- -1-741. _,emior- I tre • _ . III „at ,- r New Bridge ,se. : 4: 1 4 i ' fIt• X11 \ 11 ti r�-• IN �►.. s Lr-4- -Tr' :\ -- . , _�s----I - , 464, ‘1 / BUTTERCUP DR '�- _- : SOP rr 1 —13r. i i % A b p, i • ..I. — r 1 ! Jp ' per eiril SF , I _-j- :� 441111 116 . w' i -----.% Location Map ` ��, s B>7\ . I i ' • 6\i'-' r,0 250 0 ,,,. 0 # x, 1+1 lalmi 1 Feet North - , 1 Historic Preservation 3.15-151 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation Figure 3.15-73 5WL.1970.7 (Lower Boulder Ditch) — Preferred Alternative III _ _ _ . , . LEGEND - Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact — - _ Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL. 1970.7 Resource Boundary _ t' Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint — _ Commuter Rail Design CParcel Boundaries Ill.... Bridge Guaidrails — 71 as % — r- - -- n Aior CD irr a - �► T 1 �"..>`zil " # ill . , -3 t�'. Existing culvert • �, * a � - i' _c lul Wit,' - _ _ .- ' Alter - III vs., jt ; - . i — New Bridge r-1 r N. I Imitimi%ii,itibtry . dir ty K 1lbir. tilipiii r _ FA: 1 f r 1 ir----- e-A , f i 2 . i 1 - f - .i._i. J I i - Buttercup Dr N., i i Jr- Vii f`_ � . . r r - Vil _ A • 4 ill i ":11ki -Jr.- • ' -77 t •;/ , ''ctocation Map .. p / �,1iI I . _ 4 ./, . e 0 250 / \ le i Feet ivNorth G 411 Historic Preservation 3.15-152 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) Resource Description: The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch is approximately 44 miles long and runs through Adams, Broomfield, and Weld Counties. The ditch was originally built in 1907. Several segments of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch are within the APE (see Figure 3.15-74). Segment 5WL.1966.1 generally follows a serpentine course adjacent to the east side of 1-25 and crosses the highway and the frontage road in multiple locations. The concrete-lined ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under 1-25 and the frontage road was altered and conveyed under the roadways in CBCs when the highway was constructed in the 1960s. Segment (5WL.1966.1) is 3,524 feet (0.67 miles) long. Well- developed willow growth exists along the south levee of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development. Weld County segments 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 cross the APE at the proposed commuter rail alignment. These segments each contain the 60-foot-wide concrete lined channel running through a rural setting. Segment 5WL.1966.8 is a 607-foot-long segment of the Bull Ditch that follows a gently curving alignment from west to northeast through the project area. The Broomfield County portion of ditch within the APE includes 20-foot-wide segments 5BF.72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 56F.76.2. Each concrete-lined segment crosses under existing 1-25 and the frontage road through modern CBCs. Segment 5BF.72.1 is 1,439 feet (0.27 mile) long. Sparse riparian growth of large mature trees exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. • Segment 5BF.72.2 is 1,023 feet (0.2 mile) long with grassy vegetation lining the ditch levees. Segment 5BF.72.3 is 3,392 feet (0.64 mile) long. The latter two segments traverse areas characterized by industrial and residential development. Segment 5BF.76.2 is 2,172 feet long and approaches SH 7, then turns south crossing both SH 7 and 1-25. The ditch where exposed is earthen with rip-rapped banks and is about 15 feet wide. The ditch has been extensively realigned by recent commercial development to remove the entire ditch loop north of SH 7 and is now buried in a pipe for its length parallel to SH 7 and crosses south underneath SH 7 via a bridge. This segment of the ditch ends at the foot of the 1-25 southbound on-ramp. The Broomfield segments traverse areas characterized by industrial and residential development. The Adams County segments include 5AM.457.2, 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8. Segment 5AM.457.2 is approximately 35-feet wide and 3,685 feet (0.7 mile) long. This segment crosses under existing 1-25 and the frontage road via modern CBCs. Heavy riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding land now supports mixed development. Remaining segments 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 cross 1-25 and the frontage roads inside culverts installed when 1-25 was constructed in the 1960s. Segment 5AM.457.3 runs east of 1-25 near the base of the northbound off-ramp for SH 7. The ditch runs underneath 1-25 in a 330-foot-long CBC. The segment appears briefly on the surface at the opening of the CBC directly east of 1-25 and immediately disappears below ground to cross underneath the Larkridge Shopping Center. • Segment 5AM.457.4 of the ditch is located west of 1-25 and south of West136th Avenue. Most of the ditch segment has been abandoned and the ditch has been realigned at a point further west of 1-25 out of the APE. A portion of the abandoned segment has been obliterated by new commercial construction at the site. Historic Preservation 3.15-153 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-74 5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) III Segments Intersecting Project APE M r LEGEND * Historic Ditches A, Study Corridors •\,,\ 1851 /"s/ Highways f '•� /\/ Arterial Roads / ® \I\( IC-4 Regional Study Area Race \ e City Boundaries I Fon Collins \ / • Cities & Towns in Project Area '\ 257 N \ I � ' 7 —_ v: , .�._ 1 392 1 Greeley , 1 34 t ! 263 luveland ,a 3 :ti I 34 i • Fr Nr . I /9 I Campion . O c1rISILM / t 69 `I" 1 85 / L I &qt oad 0 Whitl % t { ' I / / 0 sik- S% Mead 7 Platteville - 4-. , 9' Ongmont i :- r r } t ' Irexi . ff voilmal v i 5WL.1966.11 • 5WL.1966.1 / 1�raestone %/ Ni.v • Frederick I 1 • 5BF.72.1 if 0 - «� `°t Lary liti 5WL.1966.8 Et re iFP 5BF.72.2 0 i w ,ernes , i 'Boulder 56F.72.3 ,'i0""" : — Fn,,�n . ' 1 5AM.457.3 N �/ {•. . \,. Igy.r,4 , 1 N / 5BF.76.2 • '\, Eastlake. / \ , �'tN^Ilwit 5AM.457.2 N. • 5AM.457.8 \ 36 ,Nth° / `l v IrNunv, '\ / 5AM.457.4 \ _ �4F L\ ' iis Denver-7 70 t -- Ii rg 0 2 4 6 8 1� Miles North ', I. 11 'N\ ,1lii Historic Preservation 3.15-154 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Segment 457.8 is no longer functional and has been abandoned. This segment is located east of 1-25 near MP 226.8. This 1,585-foot-long, 26-foot-wide concrete lined looping ditch segment has been abandoned and no longer functions for irrigation. Weeds and rushes fill the abandoned channel floor and the concrete lining of the bank is cracked and settled in many places. Eligibility Determination: The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch was a part of the ambitious, corporate-developed Standley Lake Irrigation System developed in the early 20th Century. The canal is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado, and under Criterion C as an important example of irrigation engineering in the region. Segments 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 also include good examples of concrete siphons which represent a distinctive method of hydraulic engineering that add to the canal's significance under Criterion C. Segments 5WL.1966.1, 5WL.1966.11, 5BF72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 5AM457.1 within the project APE retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Resources 5BF.76.2, 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 were found to lack sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch. • Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.1 — Package A: This historic canal is currently conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road in two places through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.1 — Package B: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned farther to the east. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.1 — Preferred Alternative: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.1 — Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the 1-25 template would be reconfigured to provide four general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package A. • Impacts to segment 5BF.72.1 — Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median Historic Preservation 3.15-155 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.1 — Preferred Alternative: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.2 — Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.2 — Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, I-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or • modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.2— Preferred Alternative: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.3—Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of four general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package A. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.3—Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of four general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under Package B. Impacts to segment 5BF.72.3 — Preferred Alternative: This historic canal is conveyed • beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be Historic Preservation 3.15-156 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5BF.76.2 — Package A: Package A would require putting the 750-foot- long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 CBC in a buried culvert (see Figure 3.15-75). Impacts to segment 5BF.76.2— Package B: Package B would require putting the 750-foot- long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 CBC in a buried culvert (see Figure 3.15-75). Impacts to segment 5BF.76.2 — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative would require putting 615 feet of the ditch located between the SH 7 pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 CBC in a buried culvert. West of the SH 7 outfall the ditch would be capped for a short distance where it runs adjacent to SH 7 (see Figure 3.15-76). Impacts to segment 5AM.457.2— Package A: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. • Impacts to segment 5AM.457.2— Package B: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under Package B, the 1-25 template would consist of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane. The portion of the ditch that currently crosses under the highway and frontage roads is conveyed inside a CBC. The new roadway would be contained within the current roadway template and no new disturbance would occur to areas of the ditch located outside the existing culverts. The integrity of that portion of the historic canal to be placed in a culvert has already been compromised by original construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, and no new direct or indirect impacts would occur. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.2 — Preferred Alternative: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under the Preferred Alternative, the 1-25 template would consist of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The portion of the ditch that currently crosses under the highway and frontage roads is conveyed inside a CBC. The new roadway would be contained within the current roadway template and no new disturbance would occur to areas of the ditch located outside the existing culverts. The integrity of that portion of the historic canal to be placed in a culvert has already been compromised by original construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, and no new direct or indirect impacts would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.3— Package A: Package A would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the 1-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 3.15-75). • Impacts to segment 5AM.457.3 — Package B: Package B would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the 1-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 3.15-75). Historic Preservation 3.15.157 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-75 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3 (Bull Canal/Standle Ditch) — Packages A & B • Y g 1 U . ! LEGEND i I .� .� P e 7t Historical Resources 1 0fl i ` Packages A & B Resource Impact ; _ { tl ' Packages A & B ROW Boundary ` t` L 5 • f ( •4 (i ' 5AM.457.3 & 5BF.76.2 Boundaries ;.A et,' I' i - 1 I Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert - - Roadway Features F� Retaining Wall „ ..I:' 1 , C Parcel Boundaries `,j Guardrails t ti '44 , , ,., .1 / H car' " 't ll t - ;— — ;•c t� •. . Existing culvert �. f, under SH 7 j d f t i 4. 5 1r iY-_t tom.. _. ,/ r._ aa- . —._. t a - "' - .. _ !1 r '` 1: • ass u e S+ r jret H- Ya r i t \ III 750 linear feetof impact x1 ' r i in $ :.r . . . .. . i . . i 4 / ' ` 1 p If .d .t�, ' d I. , �, I I' Sr. II Existing culvert ' ' • 330 feet long)Ilik iI. 1. New 100-foot-long S culvert extensiorI �. 94, I .A4 r• 7/I,/ /I � i�r L kV • r ' t"T'H ; .. 0 ire / .1 r 4 , • , rc .1 , / 10 I s J e . ' r t • / I Location Map ' . , f / �. -, //// : / //// ... Gtr. 7 4, /- North +\ III____ _ ___ __ rJ l Historic Preservation 3.15-158 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 I August 2011 EIS ' b. information. cooperation. transportation. 411 Figure 3.15-76 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3 (Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) — Preferred Alternative 4 LEGEND 111 Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact . I I Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary W 5AM.457.3 & 5BF.76.2 Boundaries Preferred Alternative F4. Bridge /Culvert • EOP f- Roadway Features ..-Ill Retaining Wall P. CParcel Boundaries �.A Guardrails 1 f at " w i . (Ditch will be capperijt Pq l \ & Existing culvert �! ' -� under SH 7 • ■ • - -- - -- - L. _.. _ ; - - tl 0 615 linear feet of impact (\ . / N. \, / Existing culvert 7 330 feet long Olk t- / / / I I t \� New 121 -foot-long 4 S,9� culvert extension i 'le t / ti (14 _ A , i-- ' i - . " I . . A ___c , I, � / � i e �a N •\ ,� _� �� \,\� i 1 Locatio1/8/114 I 14. 5 7:71. . . n M p' -- tr, a 0 200 I� - � `0 � I I Feet L , ;No�th-e / ` 0 • a• M �1 I1 Historic Preservation 3.15-159 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5AM.457.3 — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative would result in placing an additional 121 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the 1-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 3.15-76). Impacts to segment 5AM.457.4— Package A: The ditch is in an area where no improvements are planned on I-25 in Package A. A permanent water quality basin is planned in proximity to the ditch but would not result in a direct impact to this feature. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.4— Package B: Highway widening of 1-25 resulting from Package B would not result in direct impacts to this ditch. A permanent water quality basin is planned in proximity to the ditch but would not result in a direct impact to this feature. There would be no temporary construction impacts to this feature. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.4— Preferred Alternative: Highway widening of 1-25 resulting from the Preferred Alternative would not result in direct impacts to this ditch. A permanent water quality basin is planned in proximity to the ditch but would not result in a direct impact to this feature. There would be no temporary construction impacts to this feature as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.8— Package A: The ditch is in a non-improvement component of Package A and results in no impacts to the ditch. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.8— Package B: Package B improvements do not encroach on the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would be avoided at this site. Impacts to segment 5AM.457.8 — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative • improvements do not encroach on the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would be avoided under the Preferred Alternative at this site. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.11 — Package A: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment. The new rail line would closely parallel an existing active rail line through this area. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension should be necessary to accommodate the new additional rail line. No direct or indirect impacts would therefore occur. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.11 — Preferred Alternative: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment. The new rail line would be constructed on an existing railroad grade through this area. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension should be necessary to accommodate the new rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.8— Package A: In the vicinity of this historic ditch, the proposed new commuter rail line would run closely parallel to the east side of an existing active rail line. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and approximately 58 feet of open ditch would be placed in a new culvert extending beneath the proposed new commuter rail line • (see Figure 3.15-77). Although a small segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-160 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 3.15-77 5WL.1966.8 (Bull Ditch segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) — g 1/ y c ) Package A LEGEND •�� 1 Historical Resources 1 Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.1966.8 Property Boundary Package AComm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design CParcel Boundaries ay Bridge / Culvert a... . a n --, 4\ \ -ID:. 11 ii 113 Open ditch would be placed ?� inside an extended culvert; 'IN ,� 58 linear feet impacted ..4(.. A -. ill?. i t i Nti- il t. y it: of, , • \Nib . III A 1 , .. _ - _ __el.; I ",...i-e-i - ..:1°_,1: i'l ;7 c 4,1: t i 4, :. a: . 4+ t1 ;iter .:•JrI , - ,:, . .0 .N) Existing culvert i /' \ i = \ t I 1 . } • r T 11 . e i . i. 1 i ,i \ N fit , .\ l location Map IN 0 150 \s.. I l=mml=1 Feet North Historic Preservation 3.15-161 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5WL.1966.8 —Preferred Alternative: In the vicinity of this historic ditch, the proposed new commuter rail line would be constructed on an existing railroad grade. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension should be necessary to accommodate the new rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3.15-78). Summary Effect Determination: Package A: A total of 908 linear feet of open ditch would be impacted. Approximately 850 feet of ditch would be placed inside two culverts at the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange where much of the ditch has already been realigned and runs through existing culverts (BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3). An additional 58 feet of open ditch (5WL.1966.85) would be placed inside an extended culvert along the commuter rail. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at that location. No other direct or indirect impacts would occur to the remaining seven segments. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). Package B: A total of 850 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment locality (5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3). Impacts would be identical to Package A. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at that location. No other direct or indirect impacts would occur to the remaining seven segments. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, • 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). Preferred Alternative: A total of 908 linear feet of open ditch would be impacted. Approximately 736 feet of ditch would be placed inside two culverts at the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange. West of these culverts another section of the ditch would be capped as it runs adjacent to SH 7 on the north side of the roadway. In this area much of the ditch has already been realigned and it currently runs through existing culverts beneath 1-25 and its ramps as well as SH 7. As a result of these previous alterations, segment 5BF.76.2, was found to lack sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at that location. No other direct or indirect impacts would occur to the remaining seven segments. As a result of the impacted segments lack of integrity to support the eligibility of the entire resource, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). • Historic Preservation 3.15.162 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportationIII . Figure 3.15-78 5WL.1966.8 (Bull Ditch Segment of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND _ - - 1 AltOs SIMI it IS ...y 4,1 ,lk %%c% % kij_ Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact :Ns% % AIM 4%%-i 111,1411,14, Vg lk iii ' Iltr Preferred Alternative Comm Rail �' ► % \.' ;� ' . ROW Boundary 5WL 1966.8 Resource Boundary 41% lia % t li Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design #, ii \V % % IP *7 t. A 1, • _ I '17 Parcel Boundaries mi.. Bridge Guardrailsliki \1lit 11/4 S N .r iri , , . , \ li II,_AA i IL III \ lk f. lee • A No Died Impacts t. _ _ , .. til A a .' .1 rr e:J • . - S • • A • _. - :1 is tr ' III ...4 - .‘: I . A 5- %., . . : 4 \IL Afis --: .-_ ''-An'. . Jo- I IF tt \ Existing culvert • uNt. • j Iv Ink' 't 1 r' 9, 0 150 Feet II North Historic Preservation 3.15-163 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 5AM.1291.3 (Farmers Highline Canal/Niver CanalI Resource Description: This historic canal segment runs perpendicular to, and crosses, 1-25. The earthen ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the highway was altered when 1-25 was built in the 1960s, when the canal channel was placed under a 38-foot-long bridge. The entire ditch is approximately 40 miles long. The documented segment in the project APE (5AM.1291.3) is 2,234 feet long. Grassy vegetation with sparse riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes residential development. Eligibility Determination: The entire length of the canal (5AM.1291) in Adams County is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Adams County. The canal has been in operation for over 100 years. The segment within the project APE (5AM.1291.3) retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: 1-25 currently passes over this historic canal via an existing 123-foot-wide by 38-foot-long bridge structure. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing bridge would not require replacement or modification, and no direct or indirect impacts to the canal would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, the existing bridge over the historic canal would be replaced with a new 73-foot-long, 210-foot-wide pre-cast pre-stressed girder • bridge, to carry a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated managed lane. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of the historic canal, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, the existing bridge over the historic canal would be replaced with a new 73-foot-long, 210-foot-wide pre- cast pre-stressed girder bridge, to carry a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated TEL in each direction. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of the historic canal, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.322 (White-Plumb Farm) Resource Description: The White-Plumb Farm was established in the late 1800s. It is located at 955 39th Avenue in Greeley. The homestead was originally part of a 160-acres Timber Culture Act claim acquired in 1881 by Civil War veteran Charles White. The Plumb family moved to the farm in 1923 and lived there until 1997. This farm has been designated a Centennial Farm by the Colorado Historical Society. Eligibility Determination: Based on its important association with agriculture in Weld County during the 19th century, this homestead is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A. Effect Determination — Package A: None of the proposed improvements associated with • Package A are close to this historic property, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. Historic Preservation 3.15-164 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: None of the proposed improvements associated with Package B are close to this historic property, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: None of the proposed improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative are close to this historic property, and no direct or indirect impacts would occur. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. E-470 To US 36 5AM.2073 (North Glenn First Filing) Resource Description: This historic post-World War II residential subdivision (5AM.2073) is located on the east side of 1-25. It is bounded on the south by East 104th Avenue and on the east by Washington Street. It is significant as an integral and important element of the master planned community of Northglenn. North Glenn was developed by the Perl-Mack Construction Company, aided by the Denver-based planning firm of Harman, O'Donnell, Henninger and Associates, and was envisioned as serving a population of 15,000 with balanced areas for • housing, school, parks, churches, shopping centers, municipal facilities, and light industry. The original plan for Northglenn included five interconnected neighborhoods containing single- family dwellings on 1,526 acres. The residential neighborhoods featured winding streets designed for privacy and child safety. The North Glenn First Filing was the first of the neighborhood areas to be laid out and filled with houses. Homes in the North Glenn development were recognized in the late 1950s and the early 1960s with awards for quality design, planning, and comfort. The North Glenn First Filing contains approximately 183 single family dwellings constructed shortly after the subdivision was platted in April 1959. The majority of these dwellings are single story brick or brick veneer-clad Ranch-style houses with attached garages. Eligibility Determination: The North Glenn First Filing subdivision is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as a major element in the award winning, master planned self- sufficient community of Northglenn (Note: the 1959 subdivision plat identifies the development as "North Glenn" even though the entire community was originally called "Northglenn"). This subdivision is also associated with a historically significant trend of post-World War II urban growth in the Denver metropolitan area. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, no changes are planned through this portion of 1-25. No direct impacts would therefore occur. Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase one to two decibels in the future but would not reach impact levels. Much of the subdivision is located away from the mainline highway lanes, closer to 1-25 entrance ramps associated with the interchange at • 104th Avenue. The subdivision would experience lower noise levels than areas located immediately adjacent to the 1-25 travel lanes. An existing noise wall extends south from Historic Preservation 3.15.165 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 112th Avenue to almost 104th Avenue into the First Filing area and ends at the end of the northbound entrance ramp. Noise impacts would not be great enough to diminish the qualities that make the subdivision historically significant. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, managed lanes would be incorporated within the center of a widened 1-25 highway footprint within the existing CDOT right-of-way. To accommodate stormwater and municipal separate stormwater sewer system (MS4) requirements, a sediment pond would be placed between the 1-25 pavement and the subdivision boundary. No direct impacts would result from these improvements. Indirect effects (primarily noise) are the same as with Package A. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, managed lanes would be incorporated within the center of a widened 1-25 highway footprint within the existing CDOT right-of-way. No direct impacts would result from these improvements. Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase two decibels in the future but would not reach impact levels. Much of the subdivision is located away from the mainline highway lanes, closer to 1-25 entrance ramps associated with the interchange at 104th Avenue. The subdivision would experience lower noise levels than areas located immediately adjacent to • the 1-25 travel lanes. An existing noise wall extends south from 112th Avenue to almost 104th Avenue into the First Filing area and ends at the end of the northbound entrance ramp. Noise impacts would not be great enough to diminish the qualities that make the subdivision historically significant. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. 5AM.2074 (North Glenn Second Filing) Resource Description: This historic post-World War II residential subdivision (5AM.2074) is located on the east side of 1-25 and lies directly north of the North Glenn First Filing subdivision. The Second Filing subdivision is bounded on the east by Washington Street and on the north by East 112th Avenue. It is significant as an integral and important element of the master planned community of Northglenn, developed in 1959 by the Perl-Mack Construction Company, aided by the Denver-based planning firm of Harman, O'Donnell, Henninger and Associates, and was envisioned as serving a population of 15,000 with balanced areas for housing, school, parks, churches, shopping centers, municipal facilities, and light industry. The original plan for Northglenn included five interconnected neighborhoods containing single-family dwellings on 1,526 acres. The residential neighborhoods featured winding streets designed for privacy and child safety. The North Glenn First Filing was the first of the neighborhood areas to be laid out and filled with houses. Homes in the North Glenn development were recognized in the late 1950s and the early 1960s with awards for quality design, planning, and comfort. The North Glenn Second Filing contains approximately 882 single family dwellings constructed shortly after the subdivision was platted in June, 1959. • Historic Preservation 3.15.166 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Eligibility Determination: The North Glenn First Filing subdivision is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as a major element in the award winning, master planned self- sufficient community of Northglenn (Note: the 1959 subdivision plat identifies the development as "North Glenn" even though the entire community was originally called "Northglenn"). This subdivision is also associated with a historically significant trend of post-World War II urban growth in the Denver metropolitan area. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, improvements are planned through this portion of 1-25. No direct impacts would therefore occur. Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase one to two decibels in the future and would reach impact levels in the No-Action Alternative as well as Package A; however, the Second Filing area is currently protected from excessive noise by noise barriers located along 1-25. Additionally, a new noise wall is recommended to extend north of the Second Filing area. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse affect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Package B: Under Package B, managed lanes would be incorporated within the center of a widened 1-25 highway footprint within the existing CDOT right-of-way. To accommodate stormwater and MS4 requirements, sediment ponds would be placed selectively in areas situated between 1-25 pavement and the subdivision boundary. No direct impacts would occur. • Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase one to two decibels in the future and would reach impact levels in the No Action Alternative as well as Package B; however, the Second Filing area is currently protected from excess noise by noise barriers located along 1-25. Additionally, a new noise wall is recommended farther north of the Second Filing area. These noise impacts would not substantially diminish the qualities that make the subdivision NRHP-eligible. The visual impact of the sediment ponds would not indirectly affect neighboring homes enough to diminish the qualities that render this subdivision NRHP-eligible. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no adverse affect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, managed lanes would be incorporated within the center of a widened 1-25 highway footprint within the existing CDOT right-of-way. To accommodate stormwater and MS4 requirements, sediment ponds would be placed selectively in areas situated between 1-25 pavement and the subdivision boundary. No direct impacts would occur. Noise levels caused by 1-25 highway traffic would increase one to two decibels in the future and would reach impact levels in the No-Action Alternative as well as the Preferred Alternative; however, the Second Filing area is currently protected from excess noise by noise barriers located along 1-25. Additionally, a new noise wall is recommended farther north of the Second Filing area. These noise impacts would not substantially diminish the qualities that make the subdivision NRHP-eligible. The visual impact of the sediment ponds would not indirectly affect neighboring homes enough to diminish the qualities that render this subdivision NRHP-eligible. • FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse affect to this historic resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-167 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.15.2.4 PACKAGE A AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT COMPONENTS The transit components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would generally affect historic resources due to the location of commuter rail improvements. Specific consequences related to each transit component are described below. COMMUTER RAIL: FORT COLLINS TO LONGMONT Within this segment the alignment follows the existing BNSF Railroad alignment. Between the north end of the regional study area and the Colorado State University (CSU) station, the existing track would be used. Under Package A, there would be one additional set of tracks to the east within the existing railroad right-of-way from CSU in Fort Collins south to North Longmont. Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be four areas where passing track would be constructed adjacent to the existing track totaling approximately 10.5 miles. Additionally, a maintenance road would be constructed adjacent to the rail line in areas where there is no existing parallel road. There are 15 historic properties in this component of commuter rail. 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado - Fort Collins Substation) Resource Description: This structure, located at 128 W. Prospect Road in Fort Collins, was built in the 1920s. It represents the first generation of power facility construction after Public Service Company consolidated their control over delivery and transmission across Colorado. Eligibility Determination: This structure is significant under Criterion A for its role in distribution of electrical power to Fort Collins and the Colorado State University campus. It is also architecturally significant (Criterion C) as a good example of an early twentieth century • power facility. Effect Determination — Package A: There would be no direct effect to this property (see Figure 3.15-79). Indirect effects include a change the visual environment due to the construction of a retaining wall that would be built on the adjacent railroad right-of-way. There would also be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this commercial/industrial building. Noise levels are expected to increase 1dBA over existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: There would be no direct effect to this property (see Figure 3.15-80). Indirect effects include additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under the Preferred Alternative, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this commercial/industrial building. Noise levels are expected to increase 1 dBA over existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail • improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource Historic Preservation 3.15-168 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 3.15-79 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado-Fort Collins Sub- Station) — Package A s , Nato LEGEND _ . ill Historical Resources Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5LR.11330 Property Boundary f;'''Ilki Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries — a Retaining WallPackage A Comm Rail Footprint II li , • `It I I I Amer i P _ ,,� -IF _ iriktarkiip, , ,, A • w * St , iii thisie, _ _. ,i S '! « '- ., ,llenrit j , �,' -ill ,i.i • .ce .. I , I t _ ..sipt,, s. ...., --.�- --«..�. - ,•-w. it. ' '#. L~Y x JI, t r tillair , : -. I ir i . 4 i .US1L't__ IL :t'1 1 laity _x ! , VI : _ I. : 1. i le r al ti k,ifer,4-",ingirr _ - '4 44 , • ; ., t .,,Fort._,rA-c r.nirer e' .rr, • . . .. • . ,•• _ I i.LIc: ti n M: 4;, IIVN0 oo ~ Ill l i Feet North Historic Preservation 3.15-169 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-80 5LR.11330 (Public Service Company of Colorado-Fort Collins Sub III - station) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND i ai. 71 r rill legriMil i` Is Historical Resources `, ;tt, Preferred Altemative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative Comm Rail P ROW Boundary O it I" 5LR.11330 Property Boundary �i. . y ° 'w r. Package A Comm Rail Footprint - Commuter Rail Design i i Parcel Boundaries 4 ~� Bridge Guardrails f r I r .: I _ .3"• � ? r w•Qr a _ « • ,1 z l _ G * .. r r lialltist . 41 • , , t,, M 1 T• U ' . i HI jaw,. ter, c Ii 4 a a i t Net Witt )K ,, ,r, '_ III "illNo Direct Impacts �y rr .• ,; •, ' sik • �ir: ii di ,, • . L -a a ..,, , P I i _ 1�� •,1 _ III I r ! ea .-/ It l .♦ l . 3.1r'Y'�' 4 I _____ . + yp ' . . ,, , , .,:it ll i N.r �t' - Ir , mo t, f V I.44' ( 1 , i at 1. t ' . • . , . ifFs, ' Y a I °eatlon M ,► . . .• V i it 0 �C] �/ • t� I III M • -N it.e . ,,— • t I ' Feet North 4 . i 'I Historic Preservation 3.15-170 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County Canal No. 2) Resource Description: The Larimer County Canal No.2 was constructed in 1873. The 3,204- foot segment crosses underneath the existing BNSF railroad south of Drake Road in Fort Collins. The ditch then turns south, parallel to the railroad for a distance of 2,731 feet before returning to an easterly course. The ditch is in part concrete lined, and has been extensively realigned and portions placed inside a pipe along the railway. Eligibility Determination: The ditch segment 5LR.10819.2 no longer retains its integrity of location and therefore does not support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: The existing 25-foot-wide bridge would be extended east approximately 15 feet over open ditch to accommodate new track for Package A commuter rail (see Figure 3.15-81). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by construction of the BNSF railroad and Package A modifications are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Canal No.2. Effect Determination—Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative in this location would include the commuter rail service to be added and carried over the historic ditch on the existing 25-foot-wide bridge (see Figure 3.15-82). FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Canal No. 2. 5LR.10681.1 (New Mercer Ditch) • Resource Description: The New Mercer Ditch (5LR.10681)was constructed in 1870 and is one of the oldest ditches in the Fort Collins area. The entire ditch is 15.6 miles long. This segment is a 1.1 mile long unlined ditch. Where intact, the ditch is 26 feet wide and 10 feet deep. The original ditch crossed under the railroad but in the mid 1980s it was realigned to run west of the BNSF Railroad between Horsetooth and Harmony Roads. The ditch now crosses underneath the railroad in a corrugated steel pipe south of Harmony Road and discharges into Mail Creek Eligibility Determination: The entire ditch is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A because of its important role in the irrigation and agricultural history of the area and remains in use today. Segment 10681.1 has been realigned and modified by culverts so that it no longer retains qualities that support the eligibility of the entire resource. Effects Determination — Package A: No portion of the ditch would be impacted by the commuter rail improvements in Package A, therefore, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected. Effects Determination — Preferred Alternative: No portion of the ditch would be impacted by the commuter rail improvements in the Preferred Alternative, therefore, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected. • Historic Preservation 3.15-171 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-81 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County Canal No.2) — Package AIII LEGEND 1 t Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ' 5LR 10819 2 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint n- Commuter Rail Design - r ri Parcel Boundaries I ", 1 SP: ii; ki • - 1 IP , . ill i 11 { Existing 25 foot wide bridge •6 - - - I . would be extended 15 feet • to accommodate new track for commuter rail. Total bridge width 35 feet s. . , _ . . 1 ltd iIII 11 k - .. ' " Existing Bridge = 25 tt . , t New bridge impact = 15 feet , s 1 - it �'•�. i N • � / i .� ci -r. .\ 76 4 - - % b.— . — r - cts it 1 U _. rt f .1 . 34_ -4-• e, . L ' i J ' II w1 , i - OP' • i$; ;i*4IL ;elk V V le 111 0 100 /� " ` iimimmil=' Feet NorthOH ' j 1 „,.... III Historic Preservation 3.15-172 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Ill — information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-82 5LR.10819.2 (Larimer County No. 2) Preferred Alternative LEGEND Historical Resources :1 ler Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary I 5LR. 10819 2 Resource Boundary .' L J Package A Comm Rail Footprint • i s a', Commuter Rail Design `+� f �JY i is 14 4 Parcel Boundaries ii.. Bridge Guardrails •4 11.34. • ' st41, t •:, r 'i 1' r li.st Lk , j t ' ,_.:,„__t,, oiiasic - O•, • �.. r r {� K �_ t wr . , } • rte V« las alli .; , se• Ap Aik vie . 4 ., -. :it". "it. i . r M i . - . i : ill . 1 4 h. [ %TM- wl-it -_„�� ,, • _ . p. .. .. ir ,,,,,a.....4.1 p , . , . - _ 7 ra Existing Bridge = 25 ft J ♦ ti i.I. at f '41. asti, i • • 1 .. . :^s0:• . .h-i .40,, y} :'. .:. y N , t i ell_ 1 .. • I co I ! { - % , U 1 ' ' L. . I �/ ✓ ii' c I .,_ „asp► t I' CO 4 I r r , - 0... ( -r • 4 ., r. 1 1 4 " t' I w . . . -.- . in .I '� r, . i ___,•, . 77,7- , .;,, lee :Ns-,.-:.• 1' • i s� 1, # _ t . *r, P; '' t , t I ()cation Ma - t = • .P I i ? l' I ( �� ( r . 1.P it vN a;: l I 0 1OO �'.t ': �J 1 Feet North -k III _____ Historic Preservation 3.15-173 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/ Loveland Depotl Resource Description: The Loveland Depot is located at 405-409 Railroad Ave. in Loveland. It was built in 1902 by the Colorado and Southern Railway Company which was the successor, in 1898, to the Colorado Central Railroad which originally laid tracks through Loveland in 1877. Loveland, an agricultural community, was dependent on the railroad for its economic survival and the depot was critical for efficient movement of freight and passengers. Eligibility Determination: This structure is significant under Criterion A for its role in rail transportation in northern Colorado. It is also architecturally significant under Criterion C as a good example of an turn-of-the-century depot. Effect Determination — Package A: Although there would be direct effect to the property, there would be no direct effect to the structure (see Figure 3.15-83). A concrete platform would be built between the station and the tracks. The platform's dimension would be 27-foot wide by 350-foot long. This platform would encroach onto the depot parcel and would be located adjacent to the west side of the depot affecting 0.3 acre of the historic property. The construction of this platform adjacent to the depot is consistent with the historic use of the train depot and would provide a direct transition from the depot to the arriving and departing trains. This positioning of the platform would provide impetus for recapturing the original use of the structure as a train depot. The depot is currently used as a restaurant. Other indirect impacts would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this handsome historic depot. Noise levels are expected to increase 5 dBA over existing conditions. This would not be a new or heightened condition from the • historic times when the depot was operational and trains were frequently arriving and departing from this station. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative there would be no direct effect to the property or to the structure (see Figure 3.15-84). All station construction would occur on the west side of the tracks opposite the existing depot, currently used as a restaurant. Indirect impacts would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under the Preferred Alternative, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this historic depot. Noise levels are expected to increase 5 dBA over existing conditions. This would not be a new or heightened condition from the historic times when the depot was operational and trains were frequently arriving and departing from this station. The Preferred Alternative improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-174 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation0 . Figure 3.15-83 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot) Package A LEGEND v C r ifi Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact 5LR.488 Property Boundary • • Heroin Depot Budding Footprint ' i rr $ Recent Building Addition snot bestow) • Conmuder Rail Design . r •i • Parcel Boundaries .. 4 . sil a j • I i F • . r t tan In: liIS • lk e .. Inn L In N ! • •' • • I ^', ' II •• I . � Area Impacted . 1253 Sq Ft ! ... "ail a • - 0.03 Acres ILA•- rII y Qt ill we" '' . • �P. • ■ir? r Kir -,3 al ,_ I 1 a,isb _ !r I I . • • I. ♦ ► . r ■ III - - "S ■ L .. . i _t •f • .• adwr Ire_Fi .t u .. - f ■ • 'r It t G r. lJ ' r Liki ■ yw. ` d ..0. ■ f r -■■II se • ' k ra' . I - ;t 1• i r ■ iII . • ' _ , h l, ,l Total Area: 18,665 Sq Ft 1 ! 043 Acres ) . ■ ■ r rI■■1 Dia " i it r v 1 .._ire _ ., , Location Map.", g I _ . i... - • I ant 1 100 7 1 ` 1 ;11,....,,I Feet North . '• ^�` • Ill a............ .....• ...-- . L J Historic Preservation 3.15-175 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-84 5LR.488 (Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/Loveland Depot) • Preferred Alternative LEGEND d 7th St Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact 4 . r Preferred Alternative Comm Rail 1111 � . ROW Boundary *-. pi 5LR.488 Resource Boundary • 1 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint l • ' 4.: E 3 = 1 Commuter Rail Design ____ ; ≥� 4 Parcel Boundaries '' l thip.: , is iv iv .. t - 1 ch. i ..•4;ill6th St , . it; Ve _ L_ ! ¶t'! • - • . ..a .IMO 287 ism .. , i . . . ' • Illr opisi Y` I i - Mt i WI 1p F, ' lilt0 a `-` — lial . - i .1‘',. iiiii. ti '!-:' . . r . . -1 • irrp . -"Pit, el - • - \ _ i r Using existing railroad; No Direct Impacts. E • I ail _ INS Jbt 11 4 } 1 " r i 4th . St _ S. . . � T_ - I of a, 1-+- { d .r< / 1.. iris 0 • Ala _ryh , , . • :4 , ig : ii, , MI -,sr-ii (ri , iiiii Moo titia, Location Ma 1 4S r r p`, __�_ - • 77 at .- , 3rd St 0 200 0 ik 3111 . l, — iimml I Feet North ilt I I 0 r. '_ pc Y Historic Preservation 3.15-176 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation • 5LR . .1729.2 (Bid Thompson Ditch) Resource Description: The entire ditch (5LR.1729) is 10 miles long and is one of the oldest in the area. The 2,216-foot-long segment crosses the BNSF Railroad just north of SH 402 in Loveland. The ditch parallels the railroad for 485 feet before turning east and passing under the railroad in a CBC. The 6-foot-wide ditch is concrete lined and west of the railroad and unlined east of the BNSF. Eligibility Determination: The ditch is NRHP-eligible due to its ties to the town of Loveland and the successful development of high plains irrigation under Criterion A. The ditch has been realigned and concrete-lined, compromising the historic integrity within the setting, and is non- supportive of the greater site. Effects Determination — Package A: Under Package A, the new commuter rail track would be placed east and adjacent to the existing track (see Figure 3.15-85). At the existing BNSF crossing the ditch is conveyed underneath the railway in a 35-foot-long culvert pipe. This pipe would be extended 60 feet and the ditch would be realigned to accommodate the new track. Part of this length is to alter the ditch outfall from a perpendicular bend as it exits the railroad crossing to a smoother angled alignment, for the purpose of preventing ditch erosion during higher flows. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the BNSF Railroad and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have • determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Big Thompson Ditch (5LR.1729). Effects Determination—Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, a new maintenance road would be constructed east and adjacent to the existing track (see Figure 3.15-86). At the existing BNSF railroad crossing the ditch is currently conveyed underneath the railway in a 35-foot-long culvert pipe. The maintenance road would be constructed over this existing culvert and no extension to that culvert would be required. During construction of the maintenance road the ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to the original condition and appearance Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the BNSF Railroad and the Preferred Alternative improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the entire Big Thompson Ditch (5LR.1729). • Historic Preservation 3.15-177 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-85 5LR.1729.2 (Big Thompson Ditch) — Package A 0 if ' --- LEGEND -- Historical Resources '_ , �I p Package A Resource Impact ...... Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary � , _ 4 5LR.1729.2 Property Boundary I a. PackageAComm Rail Footprint � I 9 Commuter Rail Design 6 Parcel Boundaries •I i I i 1 Nall C. • two rK' tip i .. . T T Q . lot..... „ass; i W x ] I ' W la i it o i New culvert extension of 60 feet j Total culvert length = 95 feet. i Ili j a� -4141 ;, I ' • ' 'aP'R s . ,, '. ;. Existing Culvert = 35 feet long d : ` a , li.I4 k 1 . \ '.1 /" \ ` 1 . ii, - ({ �1 '3+F i "-'& -ie, ..•t-' I y iI •i<- , i 2 ' 'ai 4 %. ilk 4.,. ilk is \ a. wt. A1 4 Q fr _ / al 14TH SW ST ,. y ti ' 4 ., Location Map - 0 200 Q imil Feet North \ I SP Historic Preservation 3.15-178 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-86 5LR.1729.2 (Big Thompson Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND l .` I Historical Resources sob I Preferred Alternative Resource Impact _ I raa. Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary ,i. • 5LR.1729.2 Resource Boundary "' i ' Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint t -' lil- r----- Commuter Rail Design III N\ Parcel Boundaries mil. Bridge Guardrailsnil IIII Ili �' i I ., I i--- air _ 0. • Irr I. -. 1r 1 I i p, .4.t , . ... ., 6ii ?et, ,_,tie .. 4, 1, iii1 .1. i lirpA4IIPPIR1/4 _ -rtrir -------- --"-'1„, toil all 1 a t. ,3 , 1 ;. 3 + iir I - i a i • to r r I Ip . IM I � ;) jai ,l I [ Existing Culvert = 35 feet long i • Existing Railroad . t0j ( ,,,:r"----,. 4 a I 1 1 A • fal - P i__ _ I IF * •1 • _ / .fig.. A. W th lick is al, t a . ''.. w IL .`, - ' I t /! r Y ^it a— , , /' 1. , L • , I -t I i 1 . 1, I T I. r 414) (^ ///JJly1/ i1 J • _, Location Map • , I I,, JII [ hJ� ' a� - _ I I Pt 0 200 f I i Feet North itlL •; w Historic Preservation 3.15-179 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS Information. cooperation. transportation. • 5LR.12552 (Ludlow Brothers Property) Resource Description: The Ludlow Brothers residence and commercial property is located at 205-207 S. 1st St. in Berthoud. The house on the property was built in 1904 and is a good representative example of vernacular construction built around the turn of the 20th century. Eligibility Determination: In the summer of 2010, the Ludlow Brothers Residence was field assessed as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion C as a representative example of vernacular construction built around the turn of the 20th century. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A in the vicinity of the Ludlow Brothers Property the proposed commuter rail line would run on the existing rail alignment located on the western boundary of the property. A second rail line would be added to the east of the existing line however, a retaining wall will be constructed in order to prevent additional right-of- way from being acquired from the property. The house is located 500 feet to the east of the proposed additional rail line and therefore it would be subject to any direct or indirect effects that could diminish the architectural or setting characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A would result in no historic properties affected as it relates to the Ludlow Brothers property. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative in the vicinity of the Ludlow Brothers Property the proposed commuter rail service would run on the existing rail alignment located on the western boundary of the property. A second passing track would be constructed to the east of the existing line however; a retaining wall will be constructed in order to prevent additional right-of-way from being acquired from the property (see • Figure 3.15-87). The house is located 500 feet to the east of the proposed additional rail line and therefore it would be subject to any direct or indirect effects that could diminish the architectural or setting characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected as it relates to the Ludlow Brothers property. 5LR.1710.1 (Handy Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the Handy Ditch crosses under the railway alignment. The entire ditch is approximately 24 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5LR.1710.1) is 2.9 miles long and 24 feet wide from bank to bank. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area includes residential development. Eligibility Determination: In 1993, the OAHP officially determined the Handy Ditch to be NRHP-eligible. The ditch is eligible under Criteria A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. This segment (5LR.1730.1) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements associated with Package A would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15.180 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 3.15-87 5LR.2552 (Ludlow Brothers Property) — Preferred Alternative 7 ----i ' 111 LEGEND -- It Historical Resources .: N is. ' jig; . . I ' ill Preferred Alternative Resource Impact brisk H urat i Jr-' • •i I` raw rt JPreferred Alternative Comm Rail ,� _ P , ROW Boundary re 4k_ , aillillit ri �I 5LR 12552 Property Boundary - bait `A "1 1. Ilia i F tPreferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint L _ . I ., et It! I Commuter Rail Design 4 . 1 EAParcel Boundaries �.. Bridge Guardrails r 111111,144' ilk Si Or _ # Aka i ti.4; Ws o-li iiilL 'r. Ili Ir— ti .i . ger! it 1 il . r,\. I .. ..a..• ..4"la 1.r I— ririniii . ,. „, r, i. . . it. tfr lb all _ ._ Keep Cirit 1. 0 r• ` art inn L, k ,, „,....T - .- 4 . _mss ft ,' 7 p Iea; A J T \ lig A 1 � 1 - T � , \, , . ...,.. ., ,, r f rF� i I ± `i x�. .. HasT i r - le- /i .. - t-Vi.:_---;) - - r , -... I L ► 1r*1 L w I I V .. _ '�� 4 ,/� co 1 r r.• i ca il - 1 \ j.Location Map *trill • . { 0 III150 /� i lli �J I Feet North '-4"444.41"lirk."r Historic Preservation 3.15-181 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Effect Determination—Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative construction of the passing track and the required maintenance road would have a direct impact to the ditch (see Figure 3.15-88). Currently the historic ditch is carried beneath the existing track in a culvert. In order to construct the additional features a 55-foot-culvert extension would be required on the west side of the existing culvert and a 60-foot-culvert extension would be required on the east side. The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the Preferred Alternative commuter rail line is adjacent to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. Therefore FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the Handy Ditch. 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch) Resource Description: The entire earthen ditch was constructed in 1861 and is approximately 22 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5LR.3449.2) is 100 feet long and follows its original historic alignment through the project area and is in good functional condition. This segment of the Supply Ditch crosses an active rail line in a culvert. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports industrial and residential development. Eligibility Determination: The Supply Ditch was determined to be NRHP-eligible by OAHP in 1992. The ditch is eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. This segment (5BL.3449.2) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. • Effect Determination — Package A: The historic Supply Ditch currently crosses an active railroad line via a culvert. Under Package A, the proposed commuter rail line would be aligned 20 feet north and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment carrying the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 65 feet wide. Thus, 65 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail line on the south side of the existing rail line (see Figure 3.15-89). The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 22 mile-long linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Supply Ditch. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: The historic Supply Ditch currently crosses an active railroad line via a culvert. Under the Preferred Alternative, the proposed commuter rail service would be added to the active rail line. However, a required maintenance road would be constructed on the north side of the existing rail line with fill slopes impacting approximately 46 linear feet of the historic ditch (see Figure 3.15-90). The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the maintenance road is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active freight rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 22 mile-long linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in • no adverse effect to the entire Supply Ditch. Historic Preservation 3.15-182 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. IIIFigure 3.15-88 5LR.1710.1 (Handy Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND _ : Historical Resources _ Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary 1 - ... . _ . _ - - 5LR. 1 710 1 Resource Boundary i QPreferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint -L _. I ` Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries f . Bridge Guardrails l• _ .. • . —. - __.. _ �1I .. _ I ilip \ 4 tl Existing railroad Iiiiit:e. , i . . . _ iil • Io • 60 Linear Feat Impacted . 0 I 55 Linear Feat Impacted i.eiif ' A 0 r Maintenance Road ii# \ l Centerline . ---. _ f • _ . .41 � . •' �� t : . • _ . f V 01 I , �--1 + -t II ►' 4 . % � I I i , . � �' - rte' I , + q a . j. 11/4\1 ' 4-; :% 1. t ` location Map ► ; • Ems . 1 0 200 I. . III . I Feet North ____. I. i , E Historic Preservation 3.15-183 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-89 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch) — Package A 411 . , LEGEND \ Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact I 4.\\ I , Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ' I t l 5BL 3449 2 Property Boundary I Package A Comm Rail Footprint • 1 , Commuter Rail Design ,�'l Parcel Boundaries a el•Existing culvert Oi i\ . s, rl r r ., . , 4 L a \ _, , it .. N, \ 4 ".4 04, Z ' . : .. , .<_. . \ 4 %. t leseDHArt: . 4"il 1 I ' * .' . .'.."or , ,../- • • Open ditch would be placed V P inside extended culvert; ' - 65 Linear Feet Impacted . is - , . . t 't . II i ;11 ' 'a-. I -77.,/f * I% •4 I' f ..r 1 ! 4 I - 1 liall", r • .: / f i�' .. _ , sass c.Location Map • 1 -- t . 1, 00110%6 - 0 200le , l i I Feet •. . . _. . North Historic Preservation 3.15-184 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-90 5BL.3449.2 (Supply Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND , "`�` Historical Resources I Preferred Alternative Resource Impact -' ,+ 1 • I Preferred Alternative Comm Rail 4, t ROW Boundary 5BL.3449.2 Resource Boundary i r Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint r �., I = ' Commuler Rail Design ' 1 Existing railroad L. CParcel Boundaries W... Bridge Guardrails I - +1 ' .d - ittl I " % #, ., if ir , ti r ' t +:‘ iir ! ,k • k; , :- - . 4.4111 : 4: _ _, fi 0. r" w, ! a. 'itt H. ale. di -1, .4 Maintenance road , centerline 4) . it, Ill, t III 5 - ._ _ d I. f : •lir irearillierlif. , 1 plor . - ie .'� / 1 I 46 Linear Feet Impacted , i .0 �. \ 'Y; /' , l r .-. 1t • 4 1 ' . . * / . I 7 I' �' I i, �. I err �+ ic i w t ?vs .J ; , ,, :cis( ,/ .- - • . it Tizzic._ Location Map _, %IT& rF� , i ' 'itiiiiir 0 200 ® it I Feet North II t 1/2' Historic Preservation 3.15-185 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5BL.3114.28 (Highland Ditch) Resource Description: This segment of the historic earthen Highland Ditch passes beneath the UPRR railway alignment via a bridge. The entire ditch is approximately 24.2 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3114.28) is 100 feet long. Both banks of the ditch are covered by riprap in many areas. Grass and riparian growth cover the ditch levees. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. Eligibility Determination: In 1991, the OAHP officially determined the Highland Ditch to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. This segment (5BL.3114.28) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements under Package A would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination—Preferred Alternative: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements under the Preferred Alternative would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch) • Resource Description: This segment of the historic earthen Rough & Ready Ditch crosses under the active UPRR railway alignment via a concrete culvert. The entire ditch is approximately 16.5 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3113.67) is 100 feet long. This segment is the oldest portion of the ditch, with water appropriated in 1869. The ditch is 20 feet wide and 6 feet deep, is in good condition, and much of its length follows the historic alignment. At the east side of the railway crossing, the ditch is piped underground beneath a power substation. Well developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. Eligibility Determination: In 1991, the OAHP officially determined the entire Rough & Ready Ditch (5BL.3113) to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3113.67) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: The historic Rough & Ready Ditch currently crosses the active railroad line inside a modern concrete culvert. The proposed commuter rail line would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment supporting the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 35 feet wide. Thus, 35 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail track and ballast on the south side of the existing rail line (see Figure 3.15-91). • Historic Preservation 3.15-186 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.15-91 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch) — Package A g ' IC. LEGEND 'Li • Historical Resources INPackage A Resource Impact ,_ .r Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5BL.3113.67 Property Boundary L� Package A Comm Rail Footprint ,..._ �� ` I� Commuter Rail Design t> 9 Parcel Boundaries II I N t r� very. . _. •.... _ e ' + r, .. .• - - " I" '0..Q1 ' •-- - 1 1v . a i - .-4.144\ i. ..--1 • \ > — Existing culverts ' , z, .• ,� • �, , ii\ ,, t .WP .W :' t • • i . ter ' _. I-, .-. ._ it:. Aktita . .A •Y�Y.215T AV None- —4-86".! anainOpen ditch would be placed ,-• inside new culvert; --y t. • t`; 35 Linear Feet Impacted ; ~ r ' 1 I r .� 5 w `. 3 ti r 35 I j.iar, 7 s_ __, ., co if );,),i,_.ii- 1 .,:.:.. :, . ..,111:,. it -.. 1 I al 1tt4 II Ip .l / rte ' h ' , � , A �4 �.. a' ' .\: i . fir` / 1 f� alit . tiIT V" tom. i 04.4; ril•:\11*,:, :frN . - I :1/4 Illiti 41 •• Pik Location Map - ,r ... 1 1 • c ..L lit 41 nil �`�, ` ✓ 0 200 `• ti, Feet North ' 'rte v 4 '• � ' " at . , 0 it,..E ._ . _ . , ..... a... _ ...ea. Historic Preservation 3.15-187 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 16.5 mile-long linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Rough & Ready Ditch. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: The historic Rough & Ready Ditch currently crosses the active railroad line inside a modern concrete culvert. The proposed maintenance road associated with the commuter rail line would be aligned east and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment supporting the road would require an area approximately 35-feet wide. Thus, 35 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the maintenance road on the east side of the existing rail line (see Figure 3.15-92). The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the Preferred Alternative is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active freight rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 16.5 mile-long linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Rough & Ready Ditch. 5BL.4832 (Oligarchy Ditch) Resource Description: The entire earthen ditch is approximately 15.6 miles long. The ditch has been associated with Boulder County irrigation since its first appropriation date of 1861, • which is among the oldest in the county. Two segments of the ditch cross the APE (see Figure 3.15-93). Segment 5BL.4832.28 crosses the active railway alignment in a culvert. This segment is 100 feet long, 21 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Both banks of the ditch are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. A second Oligarchy Ditch segment (5BL.4832.26) follows a meandering course through the proposed commuter rail alignment. This segment in the project APE is one mile long. Well developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area supports semi-rural residential development. Eligibility Determination: The Oligarchy Ditch is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The two segments located within the APE retain sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). • Historic Preservation 3.15-188 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation III Figure 3.15-92 5BL.3113.67 (Rough & Ready Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND • Historical Resources . 0IL Preferred Alternative Resource Impact I �. Preferred Alternative Comm Rail r. kri ROW Boundary 1 #" ' 4 5BL 3113.67 Resource Boundary o It . •fI mils a Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design . . _ CParcel Boundaries ♦♦ Bridge Guardrails 4 - I -...i ,. i. ' i J r It 14/ • i A p. r 4 l�� 1 - S .ik Nra..•_ a iT Existing culverts t • -- • - / . i�11" + t � lt 7t44 • Fr a 111- r ,OP 1 w 1w' # - Open ditch would be placed —r...--' n m winCis inside new culvert;"itSTAV` —le 35 Linear Feet Impacted ! a es MOP"- --1 �.�—_- • _�� t - -aH. ,�. "•_ r . .'—" ,ter •a. - •,n t` .. F 00- . .j� anal ,tati t ,,..; _ sea _4 - J •/1 1 itI , le.si il # II: it r Si' } —+ _ l O tri:it.-- 14-5E-1 i 6. • 4 I sac, t.7111, --. II : 1:16 t"---• . it, qi io ,,p ,r.. �� - y as ,rte 3 x I, •t i, • , II. .„, • it _ .Yiarti `- 1 '` - r-.a:1_00 of / , s M, 4 4. T . `fi t -f t t rid ' �r •r All- ,- f t�cation Map a �_,,,, -740 an MainlitiNli All 1:4^ V 1 t t sk , ��r t r 0 200 F `� Feet f .-•,ri,.�� `'> North o -, y 1Yr r° 4N t � = ,r .�� in. a - t f -. . rte .r Historic Preservation 3.15-189 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-93 5BL.4832 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Segment Intersecting Project APE Ill LEGEND * Historic Ditches P% Study Corridors 181 /\/ Highways .4 \. "/ Arterial Roads P s:l J Regional Study Area l . ., City Boundaries 1 Fort Collins `\ 1 � t a Cities & Towns in Project Area i '� 257 1 I 1 1 a tnnrratJ, o , , arbrance I i • ' is v ,-1392! i • 1 i 34 i 2('3 • lovelann 34 ' ' r i as Joteut wen / . so.. I i ; berth,,, OF I 0 Milliken 85 / • • irs. i / ci / i • it 5BL.4832.28 I f ongtim;it i i 0 i �. o i rw,N« v I 5BL.4832.26 ,i ♦% 0 (xnberrel u v 7 a Boulder l i l \ - \-, O Eastake -•\ % rthglrin, / `' •/: , / �•�/ ! Derrver--%-�ami i SI i / W r / nl 0 2 4 6 8 10 - I ' t t ' I Miles North \;__ ' ").\Th\--.N.,,, , , 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-190 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Impacts to segment 5BL.4832.28— Package A: The proposed commuter rail line under Package A would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad. The new embankment supporting the tracks and ballast and ballast would require an area approximately 48 feet wide. Thus, the existing culvert that carries Oligarchy Ditch underneath the railway would be extended; impacting 48 feet of the open ditch that would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail line on the south side of the existing rail line (see Figure 3.15-94). Although the physical integrity of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing a portion of it into a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Impacts to segment 5BL.4832.28 — Preferred Alternative: The proposed commuter rail line under the Preferred Alternative would include the addition of a passing track on the east side of the existing rail line and a maintenance road on the west side in this area. The new embankment supporting the tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 48 feet wide to the east and the embankment supporting the new roadbed would require an area approximately 16 feet on the west. Thus, the existing culvert that carries Oligarchy Ditch underneath the railway would be extended; impacting 64 linear feet of the open ditch that would have to be placed in a new culvert (see Figure 3.15-95). Although the physical integrity of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing a portion of it into a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Impacts to segment 5BL.4832.26 — Package A: Portions of this segment of the historic Oligarchy Ditch would pass through the proposed route of the new commuter rail line under • Package A. The ditch meanders across this area, often running parallel to the planned railroad alignment. A segment of the ditch was realigned during construction of Ken Pratt Boulevard. (SH 119), with the old channel being covered up and a 1,200-foot-long portion of the ditch placed in a 1,200-foot-long culvert underneath 3rd Avenue and SH 119. The railway alignment follows a broad sweeping curve, and intersects the irregular course of the ditch west of 3rd Avenue. Because the ditch and railroad alignments generally run parallel, a 210-foot-long stretch of the open ditch would have to be bridged by a new railroad structure. A total length of 210 feet of open ditch would be spanned by a new bridge (see Figure 3.15-96). The resulting overhead cover would shade the portion of the ditch located underneath the bridge, but all structural support elements such as piers or abutments, would be placed outside of the historic boundary and would not result in a direct impact to the ditch. The physical selling of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it underneath a bridge structure. Impacts to segment 5BL.4832.26— Preferred Alternative: Portions of this segment of the historic Oligarchy Ditch would pass through the proposed route of the new commuter rail line under the Preferred Alternative. The ditch meanders across this area, often running parallel to the planned railroad alignment. A segment of the ditch was realigned during construction of Ken Pratt Boulevard. (SH 119), with the old channel being covered up and a 1,200-foot-long portion of the ditch placed in a 1,200-foot-long culvert underneath 3rd Avenue and SH 119. The railway alignment follows a broad sweeping curve, and intersects the irregular course of the ditch west of 3rd Avenue. As a result a 61-foot-long stretch of the open ditch would have to be bridged by a new railroad structure. A total length of 61 feet of open ditch would be spanned by a new bridge (see Figure 3.15-97). The resulting overhead cover would shade the portion of the ditch located underneath the bridge, but all structural support elements such as • piers or abutments, would be placed outside of the historic boundary and would not result in a direct impact to the ditch. The physical setting of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it underneath a bridge structure. Historic Preservation 3.15-191 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-94 5BL.4832.28 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Package A Commuter Rail III ��< -.y.-3: et animas a — A , _ . It LEGEND ,. r. . Historical Resources i : ' � ' r •I Package A Resource Impact •i i' uF 1� Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 1 ! . _ . ,,. c lir �� SE; 5BL.4832.28 Property Boundary410AI CI _ ' _ QPackage A Comm Rail Footprint M r� — - allir tiE: Commuter Rail Design ( ■ ��. � � .ice„ ' _ . - . i ' - Parcel Boundaries - " - . . Ill " 1 ti Age 1:_ --,....,... ...., i _ ! a . . . _ _ _ .. ..„.... ,. ...... , , ... c it . ,,,/ . --,.. " 0, - l tat\f _ iii. ,.. . . / 01 I . , • N. _ J� r M r - ' , All Open ditch would be placed 1 •' - ,,� inside an extended culvert; - - 48 Linear Feet Impacted . 'a 'tLi , " . , ' i . milli). \\. irolk . 40 * ; -.a. ' i . . I .i. vii iiik.„itel , V .. ./... _______/- • • :iiii)it . - lit III , \ 0 _\,.._____-_ - 4 .. ._. . . c ANNIV \ RSA -4 �/ . �� Existing culvert — wr -, , , Irilli .ice • �� A . r' `.1 a . \ I I Iiir ' I lc 0 _ `,\ lir , ."_\ 1. . . 4_ .. _________c. .. .. ! ii: .0it. ' • " , 1 .,+.1 . MI 13 ' tri r‘.: _ oNOa i 41 Ill" - � •� / r ill t— • --(di- A Lo Map � _4'. m: •' - s . . ;ifsv" t. t� J T o 1 50 K �� I Feet North k \ III Historic Preservation 3.15-192 - -;_�,. Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Figure 3.15-95 5BL.4832.28 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Preferred Alternative E - • LEGEND PI prey _ " Historical Resources -- Iii i - 9 Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ' - ' l - , 1 'v.". t agrt - Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ''r a. ROW Boundary . .-.., ; - -- ....A. . !. a 5BL.4832.28 Resource Boundary - •__..y . . _ �, _ . I Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint _y = "��-_ jrai""' -- - CME' ommute+ Rail Design Isoillimi'' Aspi. iIIIMirigua •` ill Parcel Boundaries �. Bridge Guardrails '4 ll y IEl; w - 1. i� rr SIP +4 P u +- .ar4 • r . )i s aa. " • • Y ..ti. L 4 . : es l' ' . , w Open ditch would he placed . pe M. - IL•_ inside an extended culvert; �"!"" istr 64 Linear Feet Impacted : .-. di. Ar , C. IS iTr- r d la 7C4ret AL ,. 4- oixV-- tillattli: ., 1 kirabill : .. , al ,.... III " --ik > :4 L _ .. , ..e. lir ,A diV•;0Sitik Al " - ' '.• ' - O „. ir i` _ - Existing culvert _ t , F OFtS�v-rk°3.0TRA „._., i - .. ,` f ., riff, a,' . L a—\\I \ 7 • is , it ' i. ro t fi_iit;._. -i—r__ _IF, I {, :trt , . __ \310priiiiiii i .40eitcHj ,! ILN w � I CL j i.. . i,„., i # _ , ., e': SOHO ,..0 .. . , ..... IL , � . . "► , trt. H t, -"�-� - ria- • lkil.. A0 .• ,, >- 4 -,,, ., . , . i • _ . • H. d -i-c .! 1 , ,` Location Map:o is Pi. ` -t lit . iorth -r com 1 ➢ �j f • it VN ALA I 0 150 . I I Feet North 11 III rHistoric Preservation 3.15-193 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-96 5BL.4832.26 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Package A Commuter Rail III LEGEND — -A ql ,r Historical Resources A 4 J Package A Resource Impact ,. Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary SP ' 5BL 4832 26 Property Boundary . '. . QPackage A Comm Rail Footprint -'.y '�. - 4., l f �_ Commuter Rail Design Ma / / > �I ; Parcel Boundaries /2' �� Bridge Culvert r t •:-/y; Ni> - r` „ , ... 4 h- 1elfrG if �� rAAte i „+ II 4 �' A' v ,tikr'''•h jA tf Rla. �. e+: --- , .::: )frft..telli4. dr,. .-. S:rilit---- .■ w' • • Existing culvert At- ' — ` 4ke 210 linear feet of open " - ' -ita at11111 .., ,. _ i ....."„ .„ _,, aditch would be placed �� under new bride 119 _ MOW ` • WIIIP t , If ' r w•1 •‘.1 _ - -ii Sj.-7-- 1 • KYLIEtOR,____<4::: , oilLx. c-- _ ,_i_4 Mir al= al kil I // . MINIE °NNW l'a. err us l i1•tf i 't'� �j! ~ L• iist-I vii, "' t!rtlIfrik* 1...4, .F. t________ k . - .,_- AiO as, I . / . .3,- , : 7 .i3 Twin.;ti oftA--; . 10-- ri �,r i il i • ....., __......... _,... !rf ., , , -cis -��--r " ~ r t, Location Map , r- te.at, L� 5 f • 0 300 "'"" ` 0 • 1 � 1 Feet - � - •� - North ' • ry'i ,---- it, N`' .y Ill Historic Preservation 3.15-194 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation III Figure 3.15-97 5BL.4832.26 (Oligarchy Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND ____ - # 04 Historical Resources P .allissAre ; Preferred Alternative Resource Impact r Preferred Alternative Comm Rail , : _ _ _ - ROW Boundary 5BL.4832 26 Resource Boundary ', .., a I 1° Q Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint , Commuter Rail Design tt, CParcel Boundaries .... Bridge Guardrails / . , .Ole ' , , , 4114* �_ 1, i 1R . . . bits { f Existing culv•rt - e3„vA1ke � 61 linear feet of open — - ,: ditch would be placed IIIa i under new bridge —' ` Hp]_ Qua<< .-...-1" ---•-..-...... � ' ' -- -Atka .. .. ..._... r: _ .:. , �� .� ...�. ` 4'' ir I / i ' \' 11 - 144 . - : IIMM C[21 M , . / 5 ;�® r I �0 ''HI' '' _ T• -f , .,/ • ( ,_ L' 111 �, Location Mail-4 �'� L,"'1_ =goals. e, L ;. _' -- - ) 1 f \I` 1 ! - - t ,, - 1M _ ca-- gilt .a —, . Jam''• -7:_Y� f...........i .1 _ _ i. 0 300 ' « ► 1 t - � �� I Feet �- try Ili --: 1 . , North ,� v Tilir Ill Historic Preservation 3.15-195 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Summary Effect Determination: Package A: A cumulative total of 48 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a new culvert (5BL.4832.26) and 210 feet of open ditch would flow underneath a new bridge (5BL.4832.28). Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation. Because the physical integrity of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it inside a culvert and underneath a bridge structure, and these changes affect only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). Package B: There are no direct or indirect impacts to the resource resulting from improvements associated with Package B, therefore FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch. Preferred Alternative: A cumulative total of 64 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a new culvert (5BL.4832.26) and 61 feet of open ditch would flow underneath a new bridge (5BL.4832.28). Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation. Because the physical integrity of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it inside a culvert and underneath a bridge structure, and these changes affect only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). 5BL.9163 (Kitely House) • Resource Description: The Kitely House is located at 846 Atwood Street in Longmont. The property was the home of Rae and Mary Kitely, who both made significant contributions to Longmont's history. Rae was the son of early Longmont pioneers and one of Longmont's most influential citizens. He was a lawyer, and a banker and served for 10 years as mayor of Longmont. The house is also significant for its association with Longmont's residential development from the early to mid 20th century. The house is architecturally notable as a good example of the Craftsman style of architecture. Eligibility Determination: The property was initially surveyed in March 2003 and field assessed as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with Longmont's residential development, under Criterion B for its association with the Kitely's and under Criterion C as a good example of Craftsman architecture. It was re-evaluated in August 2010 and assessed as eligible under those same three criteria. Effect Determination — Package A: The impacts associated with commuter rail under Package A would occur along the eastern edge of the property where a very small strip of land totaling 385 sq. ft. (0.01 acre) on the east edge of the property adjacent to the west side of the existing railroad tracks would be acquired for construction of a retaining wall that would prevent a more extensive acquisition from occurring. Removal of this strip of property would not have any impact on the historic association or architectural qualities of the house that make this property historic. Removal of this strip of land would not diminish the architectural or setting characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP. Therefore FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse • effect to the resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-196 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: The impacts associated with commuter rail under the Preferred Alternative would occur along the eastern edge of the property where a very small strip of land totaling 385 sq. ft. (0.01 acre) on the east edge of the property adjacent to the west side of the existing railroad tracks would be acquired for construction of a retaining wall that would prevent a more extensive acquisition from occurring. (see Figure 3.15-98). Removal of this strip of property would not have any impact on the historic association or architectural qualities of the house that make this property historic. Removal of this strip of land would not diminish the architectural or setting characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP. Therefore FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. 5BL.10636 (Bowls Residence) Resource Description: This residence, located at 122 8th Ave. in Longmont, was built in 1939. It was the home of a local carpenter, Joe Boggs and displays elements of the Mediterranean style including stucco walls and an arcaded porch. Eligibility Determination: This structure is significant under Criterion C as a good example of an early twentieth century vernacular home with some Mediterranean style elements including an arcaded porch. Effect Determination — Package A: There would be no direct effect to this property. The commuter rail alignment would stay on the existing single-track rail through this segment. Indirect effects include additional train traffic on the railway tracks under Package A, creating • minor vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this residential building. Noise levels are expected to be the same as existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: There would be no direct effect to this property. The commuter rail alignment would remain within the existing rail right-of-way through this segment (see Figure 3.15-99). Indirect effects include additional train traffic on the railway tracks under the Preferred Alternative, creating minor vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this residential building. Noise levels are expected to be the same as existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-197 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-98 5BL.9163 (Kitely House) — Preferred Alternative III -----vs.,_ 1 • • . LEGEND Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact *EA Preferred Alternative Comm Rail _ ROW Boundary 5BL.9163 Property Boundary P 1 Q Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint .0 Commuter Rail Design _, aParcel Boundaries F. Bridge Guardrails —\ w 'q It! 'h'; - r r, ' ii r T 9th Ave iii._: . alleakes! - -art _ llill .fir , r > III g R ," O L \ /.. ' iri: i 1 tip -., .. '\.. , . . , ... .. . % ii ii. . .._ _ ,. • . , 4.: .\ AL'`- - I gem. 1 I `'� OP. - Is M •l 5 , Area = 385 Sq. Ft. -;T 11 N �� ; -a Acres = 0.01 40 . _l / ITS % `zi . / If • IRS -- . ; // L ` , ' Location Map • R L. J 0 60 - ..-. dif .,. Feet North i III Historic Preservation 3.15-198 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation 0 Figure 3.15-99 5BL.10636 (Boggs Residence) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND _Historical Resources 9TH AVE- -1 . 1/141/. . . _ . Preferred Alternative Resource Impact .:,w . - • P i� Preferred Alternative Comm Rail I r ROW Boundary ,� ` 5BL. 10636 Property Boundary : Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint H .. , , , . . . Commuter Rail Design ' cParcel Boundaries N.. Bridge Guardrails (' i i 4 1: k . . lip r le 1 it /014 7 6iiiril. fe i. .0. . % ere .4 t of El , - �— .4 +i, .� It` `r .. co 1 i . A- , • . • III .„ ir. I • . ,. . . . v .: . .. {,_ a t. , ' : 'a ., r, _,,,, 1 ' Vii: t t1 I t ahri „el. •,.. . . .i„,. . , . H , .. 40,4 P nit. IP all k 1 ' -.. Time • . • i MI5 "4.- • , i �} • r 1 V 4 t tit ;lily . t IIIIMIllier 1 Elan .__ I ()cation Map fain. __ - s lea Illiali 0 i_e_ 100 /\ III I Feet North ®. r� JO rt Historic Preservation 3.15-199 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • COMMUTER RAIL: LONGMONT TO FASTRACKS NORTH METRO This segment uses the existing track in the area between downtown Longmont to SH 119. From that point for Package A, a new double-track rail alignment continues to the east along SH 119 and then south along the west side of WCR 7, then southeast along UPRR right-of- way to FasTracks North Metro. For the Preferred Alternative, the rail would be largely single-track with 5.2 miles of passing track located immediately west of 1-25. There are 12 historic properties in this component of commuter rail. 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Buildingl Resource Description: The Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) is located at 103 Main Street in Longmont. It is an excellent example of 1930s industrial architecture featuring large windows, an open plan and solid brick construction. This building served the city's power needs from 1931 to 1969. Longmont was one of the first cities in Colorado to develop a municipally owned electric generation plant. Eligibility Determination: The Old City Electric Building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the development of Longmont, and under Criterion C as an excellent, intact example of industrial architecture. This early power generation plant has also been designated as a Local Landmark by the City of Longmont. Effect Determination — Package A: Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing freight rail line on the north side of 1st Avenue in Longmont would require acquisition of new right-of-way, including 0.85 acres of land containing this historic building. • The building would need to be demolished or moved to a new location to accommodate the new commuter rail line tracks and associated construction activities (see Figure 3.15-100). This direct effect would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that an adverse effect to this resource would result. Details of mitigation for this effect are discussed under Section 3.15.3. Effect Determination—Preferred Alternative: Since the Preferred Alternative would be single tracked through this area; there would be no direct impacts to the Old City Electric Building (see Figure 3.15-101). Indirect effects include additional train traffic on the railway tracks under the Preferred Alternative, creating minor vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this residential building. Noise levels are expected to be the same as existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-200 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 3.15-100 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Building) — Package A Commuter Rail — Q .: LEGEND —` ti - ' S. ---- lie- ."i 1Historical Resources i a t � •• . t � r"• :r • Package A Resource Impact ` ,. � im. EE iii• 1 Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary «sIF(+ik T,. W• 5BL 1245 Property Boundary �'; �'� Package A Comm Rail Footprint IZ • < t w Commuter Rail Design -tipt ,^� Parcel Boundaries 0 1R it --1.- ♦V . a ju iffkii., lt rr x 1. k . . 41. ri ,., • 2ND AV"Ft !, • r a . giegbarasi4 M..11 . li -.a:. sam... t , sr vjj r sr, : . . s•ii..--- I I. .. pitiii4 • Sr.. sflT « ... or kfr Area = 37,055 Sq. Ft "�'f ;� �-, AAP • r�� snick _ ~ i4 Acres = 0.85 �,,; y ►� .f fry` bilf I - ; E'r'''n'stejlt.... ire. : .r ,. I is- - 1fr) i - ' �..�... - ` �• 15T AV : : i ' - _ - 1 illIS 1 7 ' ! a. .► Iu tIL. Cr 0 l '$ • I. ,. ir t ... g-,_ I , r-1-1------4V\ ,t ___ _ a i .M -- 1 1 I_ �._ ,,,�_ , _ I471_ �� /�� _ CO I aye• .. r a a . # � — ii SW: ... i .114-virenak • kilt or:pm". . .. . 0 i! — 4 7?" I , .nit 4. tor- — it t • - II;:: i • ® r d. .�►, �s s • '' ili , itv ''' 4%s ,>4 -rJ t • •->t, k eiLi -I -be + , ,. i 4 vow . i . ...., L..St 6 • i h. Location Map\\ . , -,--p/7 ji`ao` oiale Avis _ , r n� • I ,: . � 1 I .It ! I • .. O 3OO `R , 1Cai t•-*-- : ` ,t �J i Feet ' { - North IR, 11- .L all ,. , �� — r i llial w Historic Preservation 3.15-201 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-101 5BL.1245 (Old City Electric Building) — Preferred Alternative III — _ .... „ ,_._ _ LEGEND , 1 ,� „�.,�. - . . • I TO Historical Resources •' k i1 6 I:� - l, 4.V a ;_,,, :, ,.. Preferred Alternative Resource Impact I 9 Ikl p t° �' Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ' - C'' 7 P ROW Boundary I lill _ _ � ' 1►ii T a (IV' a 4 .. 5BL.1245 Property Boundary :Ik_—� ' 1� ,'. lie Loa �� r,� 4 t . LI D Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint - , � - 7 i r�� • 1 ' j rl: , i 't '� s� t i} y ` !i , E 2 r - Commuter Rail Design ? - Q = Y _ N C Parcel Boundaries �. Bridge Guardrails iii s' a'it7b • - `i m - �rI nip, st. • .. ii -. -.. , R- : i.....„......__= ij --- , EMItt• i '•MIMI= : i ' e 1 4lit• 'inilgip 0 Pat ti . . • ill U ii•I (-6 P It :, j _ ' ,. v ' ir ' NW + - b. y -ar. jill �-r: .� r-r. _ _ v_..�.--- ` _4iii, .N� - -L - ..�trs -j • �^. 1 a. •� ♦ 1 ^ L 4.11 .10,1 Sit 1 :_Ai) I . -*-1 s This -r L ti Lei ii...1 L i .i • • I. �,. � .'• , 1 _ S No Direct ImpactsIII . . � � LAP I t / 7 -_ • +t7. I • �i 0, lT _� __ • I j —�� _ . �',IP ‘1/47 118 e'R�• , �.. • - • :l i++ w (S. 111 • I .� ! 1 k"' 4% . . • J 1 + 1�_-_11 - ♦ • �/ T I I I - •I { -mss el , _1 STrAV I ~.ft � '1• •37 „y91,0TIM. 3 (1 1I I .a -429'Y _ I Au' 1I. • _CI • • LI• d . , � r oli , .\ . ;No, , Ls__ II Nor- ,7,- - ar..„, ,,,,, y 91 .. „, .-air ter - .....1 ll1 {F it, y 1 11 -i— ---- t.3-4.' -f--.__..41 •., . .. 1+�s - -- �` r l,, �1 i et �, ..y ., - a• l i 1 / Ra t • u 1 c 1 yl Al+ 4 1 !Iffi I '. , r X99 l 1 ^ . V A._ e i— ; VI / L. 4•R wil_jar, 't , 0 ri Location Maw` a- - - - - - • t , ��i i la =+ . t � _ •, ( ~ - i `Il my1Tti a n"t"Y :,1Lt Yt • f t. e V V r w l it a>......1`— z - 0 300 '� _, _ p- � yiy • ___ ___ ♦Lim_ 1,YPS �ttt� I Feet North -� * 1 -� --�^ 1 - --� • I 1 . - III Historic Preservation 3.15-202 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 eAugust 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. 5BL. 1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot) Resource Description : The _ historic Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL. 1244) 1 is located at 100 Main Street in _ Longmont. The depot was built in sk ki • 1905. It is one of the two early ' Pt!. railroad depots in Longmont and • is one of the finest small masonry- depots in the state. The depot is �` _ _ the only extant Richardsonian _.. Romanesque style building in Longmont. Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot Eligibility Determination : This depot (5BL. 1244) is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its association with railroad transportation and its contribution to the development of Longmont. The building is also NRHP-eligible under Criterion C as an excellent and well preserved example of masonry railroad depot architecture in Colorado. Effect Determination — Package A: Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing commercial rail line on the north side of First Avenue in Longmont would require acquisition of new right-of-way, including the 0. 51 acre of land occupied by this historic building (see Figure 3. 15-102 ). The building would need to be demolished or moved to another location to accommodate the new commuter rail tracks and associated construction activities. This direct effect would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that an adverse effect to this resource would result. Details of mitigation for this effect are discussed under Section 3. 15.3 . Effect Determination - Preferred Alternative: Since the Preferred Alternative would be single tracked through this area ; there would be no direct impacts to the Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot (see Figure 3. 15-103). Indirect effects include additional train traffic on the railway tracks under the Preferred Alternative, creating minor vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this residential building . Noise levels are expected to be the same as existing conditions. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15-203 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-102 5BL.1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot) — Package A III _ ___ ...LEGEN D I._ : ' }7P- zwe,vL •at S Na i Historical Resources ( " I �„ �" ~""1 Package A Resource Impact g `� ~�'_ �� Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary I I 5BL 1244 Property Boundary f i er-Ht 2 'a Package A Comm Rail Footprint SS ,r __" Commuter Rail Design I N lEe C Parcel BoundariesLir IA :I _ Y '. . P keit � Q ! 1 4 will .a nad • ' . ir 1LcJ�i.. •' im , J t \ " le s 2ND AV .1 .,. Old . ..i. , 1 i. 416 . kabiliallikt � �-ws + tR� f 4_ del raeseetiverleli sr. it WZMO1 41 'S. . 1 _ is ire i z rim. ��-�es� .� -I et . . al 11111.11sfreralii I---- e a Ill 1ST AV "'�'�� — a L ?lip -41 -1 lal lt i _ .. i's r +111 t 2 + I its. • 1' ..41 i lbb t • li . 0 is. t _ a tj41 Area = 22, 151 Sq. Ft �, .. t Acres = 0.51 t . I •• i iwa...4 rt se. , r . 1 �1ii�R4 - .1 ream - if 1 g , ,*, .f . �_ 1 -.aiiic ,, :i. lI it _ 7 ap it r ,tr1. 1 r „ is , _id , _.A,......,..„,_.: teetriar. _. • . 9, .. 1 rs. ' r _ Jr se eir: Ji: se t.' 4, rf idsaaY iii... 1 ' BOST.ONAV y ario ' . .. r•f ; it • 1_ , i • . iii, Location Map' "'- yt ✓- r V'et'M'wrt ' _ ■ `' r -I I ft �l •.'1 rM R•. �I I V-l 0 300 I7N; .c_ — re--- -- r_� I Feel . , �• ' t , North I - . e • r • .� ,_r 1 ...daft. .1, it 1P III ma_ __ __ _ II _aasHistoric Preservation 3.15-204 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation III Figure 3.15-103 5BL.1244 (Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND P.I. -'"-` i - '�� •- �.�~�^ � . = ' 7111111 11 Historical Resources j � - -- a `iii i0 ►r• Alf,031;j IP '�' Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ' �� agging Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ' - - 4; t _. . S it . ROW Boundary 41 . P . - rIll r '� ti c _ t- -- r AIsinumirradili 5BL 1244 Property Boundary _.i.,,, _ , o� _ �, Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint 4 t r ' n •rp. Commuter Rail Design F y_ f~ F _`�jL 'i� ' ' CParcel Boundaries H Bridge Guardrails 4N,' , ..� k - - ! Y i , t.!. • I .M�a� ,•�.� — - 7 unit __ , IL- • Y •r i �� If +?1, .fir- - 1' • ' .�d I. • ' ' ' j ' "----1 l} • • "2nd Ave •i� ��• - v Y s 4•,• It ' ' '� • r• tom. + • -- r Odeq r:;;; " _ I 1* P . . (n. w,...t.-ffrir • • wil . illikt,. --aill ib .. . - rip. ,,, , p.if) t to -I ,7 ° I—IN II Oh •; • - Ss 1 .♦� 1 - - �_ - • - 1 J - .Pr: 7 L 1— --� lam. !• 1st Ave � - '°fir, WC -4 k1l 1 , -1 a -_ C 1 A . , , �! ac, , __„.. .,..,.. kr , . _. iTh , ba iia .....___ , •, , , , _Air _ , , • _ , . , _ . Pyle , _ . 1 .! .11 i 7( • ' 1), r'} • No Direct Impacts tt____4a. 1 MI I '56 .. ./ #;NI $41.3... . ib. ; . / II aansan:,- ii_I:I:raj Oil I . • P Rill. _ - 1 I% r .11 LI • ., 4 f . , i , . .._ ii.,,Ahisi .,. , 1 _ 'it, . 1.047----.: - . . . .y„,„,i ,„ , . ..„ i c' '' PO' t _ ..' in ., li Nil . t Y , '�'r I ocation Maps ['rlii -� i i t._i� Ielik t t - c___ y is 0 300 ., ��? �� I Feet flu 4 0 .. . _ •• - ,.. - 1 I ♦ w 1 1ia.- Historic Preservation 3.15-205 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 5BL.513 (Great Western Sugar Factory) Resource Description: The Great Western Sugar Factory is located at 11939 and 11801 Sugarmill Road in Longmont. This sugar beet processing factory was built in 1903 and operated into the 1970s. The 3.72 acre factory site contains several beet processing buildings as well as industrial features including storage silos located north of Sugarmill Road. Eligibility Determination: The Great Western Sugar Factory (5BL.513) is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the very important sugar beet industry in Colorado, as well as its major contribution to the economic development of the Longmont area. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Great Western Sugar factory site include a station platform, park-and-ride lots, and a pedestrian walkway from the station platform to the south parking lot. The station platform intrudes slightly into the north edge of the sugar factory site, and the proposed pedestrian walkway extends from the platform through the northwestern corner of the property to access a proposed parking lot that would be located just west of the factory site. The design and cross-section of a typical commuter rail station is depicted in Figure 3.15-15. These direct impacts amount to 0.33 acre, or approximately nine percent of the 3.72-acre property. None of the buildings or other standing industrial features that contribute to the property's significance would be affected by these commuter rail facilities (see Figure 3.15-104). There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but no impacts. This would not be a • new or heightened condition from the historic times when the factory was operational and relied on frequent train transport of beets and lime for sugar production, and shipment of finished sugar. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Great Western Sugar factory site include a station platform, and a park-and-ride lot all located on the north side of the existing rail line. As a result there would be no direct impacts to the Great Western Sugar factory historic site (see Figure 3.15-105). There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under the Preferred Alternative, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but no impacts. This would not be a new or heightened condition from the historic times when the factory was operational and relied on frequent train transport of beets and lime for sugar production, and shipment of finished sugar. The proposed transportation improvements under the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter the architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the • Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-206 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation IIII Figure 3.15-104 5BL.513 (Great Western enta Sugar Plant and Novartis Seeds/Syngenta n g / Y g Seeds) — Package A LEGEND in 11 i - -..4",ilsks, *It, ll Historical Resources '. s t. OliPackage A Resource Impact r4 4 " • -. w a Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary Oa. 5BL.513 & 5BL.7606 Boundaries _ - • R . far Package A Comm Rail Footprint - ' . e zips; �� 'Commuter Rail Desgn •r e� l L Parcel Boundaries y ‘4, l r » s ,so of lalk H Ai ' i ii 4 '/ , , S . - r i . _, -: RODGERS -RD --------,- --= Parking . I., D ':. B -. kJ_ _ . , . II • 00 • 0 • ... timair_atwsi.��.. ...r.�� -� III"'Lir ,i i ....1 "Lite . Ill i _ , . . , tA tiffs 1 • 1 • rpirit - 5BL.7606 /t y Is' Novartis Seeds � - • Parking 4 4. .. Area = 14,575 Sq Ft • Acres = 0.33 • '• -; .1 Pedestrian access & platform areas. 1'r ' All features are at-grade except QT` • • overpass for pedestrian crossing. F Awe' i ,1 - 'c, i i ...•,r - .. S. r•L r• �, 56L.513 r i -,�. (j-as Great Western Sugar Plant • ` ;. fi..... -T j •. .. ` . if �e 4f �1 /`' �► • fr . sir ' • ; trf • - - - - fi_ _• ,....r - 1 r - • r • _ „ , _ rr Ai. Jialj ., eIII i :1/4Warr. %14 • - gi mir .. 4 , . . •• • r f • 11,401V•_llr� 0 , 2_41.2e. • �-*I� r - .• + . . , . _ 7 : j1 •l mot. •l 'i •r.•1 ♦ •I • * { le ' • . s ‘,#r- , Location Map ."431,7 r 77 1 4 0 300 t • • 0 L.� ( Feet 0 ,. North ._ 4. Historic Preservation 3.15-207 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-105 5BL.513 (Great Western Sugar Plant and Novartis Seeds/Syngenta 0 Seeds) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND • p} M4. i " roe 711-9 Historical Resources •- - { *�"• k " . - Preferred Alternative Re::zm18ct I �4 t Preferred Alternative Coil . f� � _ ,Riiiiiiiia - ROW Boundary f. . f' 5BL.513 & 5BL.7606 Boundaries ` — • 1h4 /. t Q Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint a'•1'�' _ • r ,t « . �,•, - c1 ' . -Nri Commuter Rail Design ��I ' 1, , /�j CParcel Boundaries �a Bridge Guardrails ,, i i ,(N I! r C Parking • [re• ti - - -- • — - .— plItIPT• ski' S r r - ... ''. star. St Sri — III _ •�,.�_a� L . - •rr �. .___may— - _ - -�•-I--_. I - �.�(��yrr . . , r � • ,tom.-� _ • 5BL.7606 Ilk'. )+f c i i... , ' ' r . a I«s A ,ci--rsa . .. - '� ;`• _aIrZad �-' . a.«Ii/ w • Novartis 4,,. ,_• Seeds ... . .. ... ; • -et, a • et .:',,z- I' it c t • r- ' •r *, i -•� a. 1 M ` I • •Ow -a —« a ' --. • H . 5BL.513 -- i 1, t . Great Western Sugar Plant: t .... . '4 - III r 1 St= rs- -,...t._. I' .-- I illw0 ' yjill, be: -. . ,- , i , ., i Locations- , :,,, d , ,, Map r 0 300t. `�' f Feet ® ' III _ • North _ • 4 I' p i «i t ____ ___ a :. air (14 - - Historic Preservation 3.15-208 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 5BL.7606 (Novartis Seeds/Svncienta Seeds) Resource Description: This large, one-story brick office building was constructed in 1951 near the Great Western Sugar factory in Longmont. The building is covered by a flat roof with wide overhanging eaves. Its façade is symmetrically arranged, with a central entry flanked by banks of nine casement windows. The building appears unaltered, and is a good example of International Style commercial architecture. The building is currently occupied by Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds. Syngenta Seeds is a global leader in the agribusiness industry. Eligibility Determination: The Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds office in Longmont (5BL.7606) is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as a well preserved specimen of International Style commercial architecture in Colorado. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A, proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds office building southwest of Longmont are limited to construction of a second, dedicated commuter rail track parallel to the existing standard gauge commercial rail line that runs in an east-west alignment a short distance north of the property. A passenger station with park-and-ride lot and platform would be located a short distance to the west, in the vicinity of the historic Longmont sugar factory (5BL.513). The 0.08 acre Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds building site would not be directly impacted by the alternative (see Figure 3.15-104). There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under Package A, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the • architectural qualities of this commercial/industrial building. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds office building southwest of Longmont are limited to adding train service to the existing standard gauge commercial rail line that runs in an east-west alignment a short distance north of the property. A passenger station with park-and-ride lot and platform would be located a short distance to the west, in the vicinity of the historic Longmont sugar factory (5BL.513). The 0.08 acre Novartis Seeds/Syngenta Seeds building site would not be directly impacted by the alternative (see Figure 3.15-105). There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks under the Preferred Alternative, creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but not to a level that would impair the architectural qualities of this commercial/industrial building. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. 5WL.5278 (William H. Dickens Farm) Resource Description: The William H. Dickens farm (5WL.5278) is located at 545 SH 119 in Longmont. This farm is associated with one of the earliest settlers in the St. Vrain Valley, William H. Dickens. Dickens became a prominent area farmer and businessman, and was responsible for building the Dickens Opera House in Longmont. Dickens's step-father, Alonzo N. Allen, was the first Euro-American to settle in the St. Vrain drainage. The 155 acre farm • includes a farmhouse, large barn and five outbuildings. The historic boundary includes land originally within the 1915 land boundary which is still being used for agriculture. Historic Preservation 3.15-209 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS nformation cooperation. transportation. • Eligibility Determination: This farm (5WL.5278) is NRHP-eligible under Criterion B for its association with the early St. Vrain Valley settler William H. Dickens. Additionally, the farm contains an intact example of a large wood frame barn with distinctive architectural features including a gabled front rain hood, narrow horizontal siding, which is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Effect Determination—Package A: Under Package A, none of the proposed commuter rail improvements along SH 119 would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination—Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, none of the proposed commuter rail improvements along SH 119 would cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.2877.1 (Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/Coffin Spring Gulch Ditch) Resource Description: The entire ditch is approximately 1.8 miles long. This segment of the ditch (5WL.2877.1) crosses the railroad along the south edge of SH 119. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the railway is placed in a culvert. The segment occurring within the project APE (5WL.2877.1) is 5,042 feet (0.95 mile) long. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports semi-rural residential • development. Eligibility Determination: The Union Reservoir Ditch (5WL.2877.1) south of SH 119 was previously recorded in association with the Sandstone Ranch (5WL.712). The ditch was officially declared NRHP-eligible by OAHP in 1998 under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. When re- evaluated for the North 1-25 Draft EIS, the length of the ditch segment was extended northward across SH 119 to the northern edge of the North 1-25 project corridor. Effect Determination — Package A: Although a new dedicated commuter rail line would be constructed along the south edge of existing SH 119 in this area under Package A improvements, this historic ditch is already placed within a culvert beneath the proposed rail corridor where it is conveyed across SH 119 and thus would not be subject to additional direct impacts. The ditch exits the culvert at the south edge of the proposed new rail corridor. The proposed improvements along SH 119 would not cause changes to this historic property. Due to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Although a new dedicated commuter rail line would be constructed along the south edge of existing SH 119 in this area under the Preferred Alternative, this historic ditch is already placed within a culvert beneath the proposed rail corridor where it is conveyed across SH 119 and thus would not be subject to additional direct impacts. The ditch exits the culvert at the south edge of the proposed new rail corridor. The proposed improvements along SH 119 would not cause changes to this historic property. Due • to the lack of direct and indirect impacts, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. Historic Preservation 3.15-210 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch) Resource Description: The Sandstone Ranch is located on SH 119 just east of Longmont. The ranch is associated with Morse Coffin, one of the early settlers in this area. Morse Coffin settled in Boulder County in 1859 and became a preeminent agriculturalist and co-founder of the first public school district in Colorado. The City of Longmont now owns the ranch property, which is now designated Sandstone Ranch Park. Portions of the former ranch have been altered recently by gravel mining, post-mining reclamation, and multi-use recreational development by the City of Longmont. The only intact ranchland in the northern portion of the property is a riparian corridor surrounding the Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/Coffin Spring Gulch Ditch (5WL.2877.1). Eligibility Determination: The ranch was NRHP-listed in 1984 under Criteria A, B, and C. The Sandstone Ranch is eligible under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County. It is also eligible under Criterion B because of its direct association with Morse H. Coffin, an important historical figure, and under Criterion C because of the architectural significance of the Coffin farmhouse. The historic district boundary is currently being evaluated for re-definition to exclude the areas modified by construction of public recreational facilities and areas modified by gravel mining. Effect Determination — Package A: Under Package A widening of SH 119 to accommodate the proposed commuter rail facilities would necessitate acquisition of new right-of-way within the extreme northern edge of the Sandstone Ranch. This land would be needed to provide space for the new commuter rail bed, tracks, and ballast. The area subject to direct impacts • comprises 2.17 acres, or less than one percent of the entire 337.22-acre historic district. In addition to the small size of the impacted area, the northern portion of the site has lost most of its integrity due to recent development of sports fields by the City of Longmont (see Figure 3.15-106). The historic ranch buildings are located too far away to be affected by noise and vibration impacts from passing trains. The commuter rail tracks would run along the edge of the northern portion of the site that has lost nearly all integrity. No indirect effects are expected which would harm the function, setting, atmosphere, or attributes that render this district NRHP-eligible. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. For all of these reasons, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative widening of SH 119 to accommodate one commuter rail track would necessitate acquisition of new right-of- way within the extreme northern edge of the Sandstone Ranch. This land would be needed to provide space for the new commuter rail bed, tracks, and ballast. The area subject to direct impacts comprises 1.45 acres, or less than one percent of the entire 337.22-acre site. In addition to the small size of the impacted area, the northern portion of the site has lost most of its integrity due to recent development of sports fields by the City of Longmont (see Figure 3.15-107). • Historic Preservation 3.15-211 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-106 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch) — Package A • - , I LEGEND _ Historical Resources _ Ni' - Package A Resource Impact t�P'EAK AVE r t L Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary - L `� J 5WL.712 Property Boundary i i = - Package A Comm Rail Footprint - IAACommuter Rail Design .•_ „act: , ^ .I - "04 1. t ,I*in. _ Parcel Boundaries you t " J'ir D :� " •' t- F • ,rrt'D E •i , , h, z,cam,: ..0 _ COLORFUL AVE i . . . _ , ...t. _, it, 44 __ .• i - ve 4. 1.44 i,,,,emillp % . tl f 1b ,~L il stiara:„.... !�" ri!air"?°-: .woos+ -- �_ .� ,� - _ 119 - ., _ - • -- + y - _ _ .� --`-- - _ - t`" - idellt;Crillg F ori 0 r S A 07 i : . \:._ Area = 94,337 Sq. Ft inr. r,t . ` -'1.-•CP Acres = 2.17 Q' ii .• .. • lir 41)4 `• 1 s r )- I , - . • _± `'' i moil • • ,I 13r, - . . i fN ' pi i I r • ". 1 • . •` I • 4. , PP �r I t 't r.' - a � iti w t _IL ® i -J • i 4 �Ft� 4 I 1 � /. ' ' 7:1.1-.. 24 I P:.1 rh Location Map .1^� ilia 500 ,.i immimmil 1 Feet .I ; � : ' North :e: 1 ` ,r,� r ..r 1/4 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-212 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-107 5WL.712 (Sandstone Ranch) — Preferred Alternative . LEGEND 4. t Historical Resources pEAKA E _ - Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Y �':" ' i f Preferred Alternative Comm Rail . _ ;•y„ II ROW Boundary `ta'• ■ � „ �- . i 5WL712 Property Boundary v _ •r i • • ,. � i _ I,A - Is) ! Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint ' Ila — Commuter Rail Design I ,I IParcel Boundaries atrin Bridge Guardrails / COLORFUL AVE c - ,y - q _ 1,'. , Ts, ... . - - u , _. •. , -- .. - a_ ir . , F SW.rb' •Melt �. ,...,............-..'•_...�•_.._ 119 • !r k • el i ' . . _ _ . _ , . . ......, - 1- • _. ... e I .• 'I'll •ft � o �. k Area = 63,043 Sq. Ft - I c ` ., �, Acres = 1 .45 ,.� . i 4 ego err _ -./ ,F/ i e-- . i i II M . , ,#, \• O r ,:. • . ..:._ 1 ., _ . •, ....... . . :... .......„ 4 ,..;11Ct-V' '-c'' '44 Tit i A t z- i I.• I AT I I • L 1 ®' —• /• i fe'R- _1 ``«1 I -' if..;'‘ / 7 i ,,s X{w" 'H location Map --'--- r, 500 �� _ " lai Feet North .--- t «. • i. 0 4 c Historic Preservation 3.15-213 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The historic ranch buildings are located too far away to be affected by noise and vibration impacts from passing trains. The commuter rail tracks would run along the edge of the northern portion of the historic district that has lost nearly all integrity. No indirect effects are expected which would harm the function, setting, atmosphere, or attributes that render this district NRHP-eligible. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. For all of these reasons, FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld County Ditch) Resource Description: The entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch is approximately five miles long and draws water from a head gate on Boulder Creek. The ditch was constructed in 1871and remains in use supplying irrigation water for agricultural use. The segment of the earthen irrigation ditch passing through the APE is approximately 684 feet (0.13 mile) long, 20-feet wide, and 6.5 feet deep. The surrounding land is rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The Boulder and Weld County Ditch is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the early development of agriculture in Weld County. The segment of the ditch within the APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: In the vicinity of the Boulder and Weld County Ditch, the • Package A commuter rail alignment closely parallels WCR 7, beneath which the ditch crosses in a culvert. The commuter rail design would include a new CBC to accommodate the historic ditch. Approximately 63 linear feet of the ditch would be directly impacted by being placed in a culvert beneath the commuter rail facility (see Figure 3.15-108). Construction of the concrete culvert structure would likely require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: In the vicinity of the Boulder and Weld County Ditch, the Preferred Alternative commuter rail alignment closely parallels WCR 7, beneath which the ditch crosses in a culvert. The commuter rail design would include a new CBC to accommodate the historic ditch. Approximately 63 linear feet of the ditch would be directly impacted by being placed in a culvert beneath the commuter rail facility (see Figure 3.15-109). • Historic Preservation 3.15-214 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-108 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld County Ditch) Package A LEGEND Historical Resources - - Package A Resource Impact 1f Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL 5461 1 Property Boundary t. it I Package A Comm Rail Footprint i d . - �a cir_=. Commuter Rail Design i. , I Parcel Boundaries IFS Bridge I Culvert i l •a f $1 •iiii.r.N.4%4,belisiek.:* , , .s 'Ra !t A • =A fi, Existing Culvert 35 ft long./000 I. �' w l • . ,. , . _. ., !. . I' ii I Open ditch would be placed inside new culvert; ` 63 Linear Feet Impacted `\ l i , _ ,� i ,-/ d4J - _ ` i .1 I- .— l._ rl , 1C ill ill ' ` O t / 1 oc Location Map I " z - 1 • 0 I Feet Ce i 0 300 �t�i 7\ . North .. .rr..�.r...�---- insaimell teatii - at- . . III Historic Preservation 3.15-215 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-109 5WL.5461.1 (Boulder and Weld Count .: i _ _ .y Ditch) — Preferred Alternative III II .. LEGEND _ • Historical Resources — i • Preferred Alternative Resource Impact _ Preferred Alternative Comm Rail • - ;' -; •-; ; ROW Boundary - .. 5WL 5461 1 Resource Boundary : ' -r w 1 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint - Commuter Rail Design ' • - F� Bridge Guardrails — Parcel Boundaries 1 1 ' - ," .. c - p ' — - -- '` Existing Culvert - I 35 ft long. '� — w III . __... . ..............„. _ � , fl ' — Open ditch would be placed _ — inside new culvert; 63 Linear Feet Impacted '1t \ - tY ; ' '1 _ i357; L. _ i _ i .. - ' Is 'Fit j — r i • 1' Location Map z a ___666—... —: 5 . .. 4. 0 . .. f. D , 9 — � F • i 0 300 ` . Lmmil I Feet North gli Historic Preservation 3.15-216 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Construction of the concrete culvert structure would likely require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch. 5WL.5263 (Hinglev Farm) Resource Description: The farmstead is located at 7523 WCR 7 in Erie. This farm is a very intact example of a historic agricultural operation in Weld County. Built in 1900, the hipped roof farmhouse is an intact example of the Classic Cottage domestic architectural style in a rural context. Eligibility Determination: This farmstead is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County and under Criterion C for its significance as an intact early farmhouse and farmstead. • Effect Determination — Package A: Proposed development of a new commuter rail alignment within a 125-foot-wide right-of-way corridor parallel to WCR 7 under Package A would cause direct impacts to this historic farm. A strip of land within the historic property, measuring 2,585 feet long and 125 feet wide, would be acquired and converted from agricultural to transportation use, placing a new railroad embankment, ballast and tracks over the acquired farmland. The area to be acquired comprises 7.34 acres, or approximately nine percent of the entire 81.35-acre historic property. An entirely new transportation feature would be introduced into the rural, agricultural setting. The proposed rail corridor passes through the original farmstead complex at the southeast corner of the property, and would require removal of the contributing, architecturally significant farmhouse (see Figure 3.15-110). These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that under Package A an adverse effect would result. Details of mitigation for this effect are discussed under Section 3.15.3. • Historic Preservation 3.15-217 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-110 5WL.5263 (Hingley Farm) — Package A III,, ,LEGEND , -- . -fiµ,. - i } ' Historical Resources u : r Package A Resource Impact , Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary w !l. • s" -_ 5WL.5263 Property Boundary y`, •: '• \'" i rit--tj ._ r•Package A Comm Rail Footprint - �WCR 18 Commuter Rail Design ! , 1.t , „. i S Parcel Boundaries ;It'f ,,r I z ; ' . I . I I , I • +I' . _ . 4 . Jr-- i c ' - , ..w a• J I ir ., . . , •4 6 Area = 319,587 Sq. Ft .-- Acres = 7.34 •t a r it 0 1 ;, , _ __- _.__.__ � r r -t; 1 .-r>a- ti �. \ i + i t I' C " 4 / • y r j _ ✓ - -77 1 r :- , t r< Demolition of farmhouse 5 V j • - - _� _ 1 - -- 1-11 . 's .:. fir• y' firh, 1 a . .* Location Map - + I I l i �%, at. • - ► • '4* tetra -: f 0 400 I -wasern III' , �r Feet - Ir. -,.., , , North . 1 - + ' Historic Preservation 3.15-218 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: Proposed development of a new commuter rail alignment within a 125-foot-wide right-of-way corridor parallel to WCR 7 under the Preferred Alternative would cause direct impacts to this historic farm. A strip of land within the historic property would be acquired and converted from agricultural to transportation use, placing a new railroad embankment, ballast and tracks over the acquired farmland. Impacts are similar to those under Package A because of the need to construct passing track in this segment of the commuter rail line. The area to be acquired comprises 7.4 acres, or approximately nine percent of the entire 81.35-acre historic property. An entirely new transportation feature would be introduced into the rural, agricultural setting. The proposed rail corridor passes through the original farmstead complex at the southeast corner of the property, and would require removal of the contributing, architecturally significant farmhouse (see Figure 3.15-111). These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that under the Preferred Alternative an adverse effect would result. Details of mitigation for this effect are discussed under Section 3.15.3. 5WL.6564 (Jillson Farml Resource Description: The Jillson Farm is located at the intersection of WCR 7 and WCR 18 approximately one mile west of 1-25 and three miles south of SH 119. The farm is significant as an important example of one of the northern Colorado farms from the late 19th century. It played an important role in the agricultural development and settlement of the region. The farm • remains in the Jillson family after more than 120 years of continuous production. The house on the property is also architecturally significant as an excellent intact example of the Craftsman style with a wide, recessed porch, tapered supports and bracketed eaves. The production of sugar beets was the main reason for the profitability of this farm and many others in northern Colorado and this association is an important part of its agricultural history. Sugar beet production in this region started in the early 1900s with the opening of Great Western's sugar beet processing facility in Longmont. Sugar beet production in northern Colorado was strong for over 80 years, but declined significantly after the closure of the Great Western sugar plants in 1985. Since that time, much of the farmland in northern Colorado has been used to produce other crops. The Jillson Farm, however, has continued to produce sugar beets. After Great Western closed its plants in 1985, Tate and Lyle, a British sugar company purchased Great Western's assets. They operated as Western Sugar Company until the late- 1990s when they began to seek a buyer for their United States operations. In 2002, over 1000 sugar beet growers from Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska and Montana pulled together and formed the Western Sugar Cooperative. The cooperative bought the Western Sugar Company from Tate and Lyle. They have five processing plants in the large four-state region of the sugar cooperative - -with two in Colorado at Greeley and Fort Morgan. The Jillson Farm is a part of the Western Sugar Cooperative and continues to produce sugar beets. They have produced sugar beets for over 100 years. Eligibility Determination: In the summer of 2010, the Jillson Farm was field assessed as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A for its importance in the agricultural development and settlement of the region for more than 120 years. It was also assessed as • eligible under Criterion C as a good intact example of a Craftsman style house. Historic Preservation 3.15-219 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-111 5WL.5263 (Hingley Farm) — Preferred Alternative III LEGEND - _ Historical Resources - '. P . . 14 iik Preferred Alternative Resource Impact 1 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary * e 17:14 5WL.5263 Property Boundary ' Zre: . 1 -- «- •WGR.18 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint "— : i. IA Commuter Rail Design 4 I ri Parcel Boundaries FI♦ Bridge Guardrails .124 _- _ 1 I >! ,.i iliilik Area = 322,585 Sq. Ft 4 Acres = 7.4 '*a, 1. -. . r . . III. . . 1 . _ _ . ___ _ i 1 .CJ I� .'� - , /' '�` / a 7_ , 7 C35;71 ir I t-` Ja I 1 7 1 Pi i 'is -- __ / �! f -� f - '{`�' Demolition of re t I' ' - 1 '`' . .N !it— , ' " v • - farmhouse r41/4- „:,fir �_0Ci3tI0rl Map _ �' fs•` s; ' , ,• �.K... �.- (-' \ ` Yin I s. U II/�\I _ -Y. I^S - �. V V r 0 400 yy. • '' r 1 FeetJr - , IPA North #,41I 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-220 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Effect Determination — Package A: The Jillson farm includes 153 acres on the west side of WCR 7 and 80 acres on the east side. The impacts associated with Package A would occur along the western edge of WCR 7. A strip of 7.34 acres adjacent to the roadway would be needed for construction of the rail alignment. This strip of land goes roughly through the center of the farm which is currently bisected by the roadway. This part of the farm is currently used as pasture for the Jillson herd of about 70 cattle. The farm buildings would not be directly affected by this project as they are located approximately 500 feet west of WCR 7. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the loss of 7.34 acres of land for construction of Package A would result in an adverse effect to this farm because of the introduction of railroad tracks and train traffic to a historic farm setting. Railroad tracks and trains have never been a part of the agricultural setting of the Jillson Farm. Not only would they provide a visual intrusion, but they would bring noise and train activity on a regular schedule to the farm. This would adversely affect the setting and feeling of the Jillson Farm. This project would not affect any of the farm buildings. The architecture of the house and the characteristics that define the integrity of the farm buildings would not be compromised. The location, design, materials and workmanship of the Craftsman style house and other farm buildings would remain the same. The association would still be strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: The Jillson farm includes 153 acres on the west side of WCR 7 and 80 acres on the east side. The impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur along the western edge of WCR 7. A strip of 7.34 acres adjacent to the west side of the roadway would be needed for construction of the rail alignment including • passing track.resulting in similar impacts as described under Package A (see Figure 3.15-112). This strip of land goes roughly through the center of the farm which is currently bisected by the roadway. This part of the farm is currently used as pasture for the Jillson herd of about 70 cattle. The farm buildings would not be directly affected by this project as they are located approximately 500 feet west of WCR7. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the loss of 7.34 acres of land for construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in an adverse effect to this farm because of the introduction of railroad tracks and train traffic to a historic farm setting. Railroad tracks and trains have never been a part of the agricultural setting of the Jillson Farm. Not only would they provide a visual intrusion, but they would bring noise and train activity on a regular schedule to the farm. This would adversely affect the setting and feeling of the Jillson Farm. This project would not affect any of the farm buildings. The architecture of the house and the characteristics that define the integrity of the farm buildings would not be compromised. The location ,design, materials and workmanship of the Craftsman style house and other farm buildings would remain the same. The association would still be strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch) Resource Description: The Community Ditch is an irrigation lateral ditch that generally runs east to west across the area south of SH 52 near Erie. The ditch was originally built in 1885. The entire Community Ditch is approximately 30 miles long. Within the project APE the earthen irrigation ditch is approximately 714 feet long and 16 feet wide. Both banks of the ditch are lined with grassy vegetation. The surrounding area is devoted to agriculture. • Historic Preservation 3.15-221 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-112 5WL.6564 (Jillson Farm) — Preferred Alternative0 LEGEND � � n �� `i► I Historical Resources . r_ - Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative Comm Rail . . ROW Boundary 5WL.6564 Property Boundary ,;* Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint .- „ Commuter Rail Design __� Area = 319,825 Sq. Ft. Acres = 7.34 Parcel Boundaries •—• Bridge Guardrails .,' r . i• 4, 4 . - T all ii ' t t_ . . 1"1 ^ .WCR''1i L Y. • Location Map`. )- 0 500 .n.f Feet North 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-222 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Eligibility Determination: The entire Community Ditch (5WL.2247) is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. The segment (5WL.2247.11) within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location and setting to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination — Package A: The proposed new double-track commuter rail line under Package A would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across the historic ditch segment, and would span the ditch at the same location as the abandoned UPRR Boulder Valley Branch bridge, creating an additional 60 feet of cover over the ditch. A new bridge structure would replace the abandoned non-contributing UPRR Boulder Valley Branch bridge. Approximately 105 feet of open ditch would flow underneath the new bridge beneath the new railroad bed and tracks (see Figure 3.15-113). The new bridge would be approximately 90 feet long and 105 feet wide. Associated bridge support structures, such as piers and abutments, would be placed outside the historic property. There would be no resulting direct impact to the historic resource. Installation of the new bridge would likely require temporary occupancy of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from contamination by construction. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed underneath a bridge, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Community Ditch. • Effect Determination — Preferred Alternative: The proposed new commuter rail line under the Preferred Alternative would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across the historic ditch segment, and would span the ditch at the same location as the abandoned UPRR Boulder Valley Branch bridge, creating an additional 60 feet of cover over the ditch. A new bridge structure would replace the abandoned non-contributing UPRR Boulder Valley Branch bridge. Approximately 105 feet of open ditch would flow underneath the new bridge beneath the new railroad bed and tracks (see Figure 3.15-114). The new bridge would be approximately 90 feet long and 105 feet wide. Associated bridge support structures, such as piers and abutments, would be placed outside the historic property. There would be no resulting direct impact to the historic resource. Installation of the new bridge would likely require temporary occupancy of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from contamination by construction. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed underneath a bridge, this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. FHWA, FTA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the entire Community Ditch. • Historic Preservation 3.15-223 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation Figure 3.15-113 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch) - Package AIII - I LEGEND ii -,,j Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.2247.11 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint 1 Commuter Rail Design , i Parcel Boundaries F. Bridge ' Culvert ilu r t, .„, Jar ---� r - i -- tat. Open ditch would be underneath a new bridge of 105 ft wide x 90 ft long ........, III i 1 - i . . _ _ .. E . N\---NN:\K" I y" i'm—L-I. IF \ \__ 'i - t /�,� i_+ I, _ - C R 10 . jar At , Par --c-ceallatillait■i-..--7,.. -- --sty 1- - - • 1r . / Wi/ . _ I I / - , _� -� -II , it . ,L i ' Location Map :- ' - . t I 0 250 ttt� I Feet North III Historic Preservation 3.15-224 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportationIII . Figure 3.15-114 5WL.2247.11 (Community Ditch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND . T W. Historical Resources _# ' u Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ` ' Preferred Alternative Comm Rail k w ROW Boundary r . I 5WL.2247. 11 Resource Boundary 1 L.r- Q Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint 1 'y Commuter Rail Design w CParcel Boundaries le—. Bridge Guardrails irir i 1 . r it: assags, in 1, t4 'I_ . . . . 4 _ ... ._ i __ _ _ , az NNsccs...................... ‘ • 9 SeT Ap.1AJlirtv- - 4C fJ a„ ' r - • Openditch would be underneath a new bridge of 105 ft wide x 90 ft long _, `' c = 1 i i \ CR 10 I — /; / I i is % ,- --',.;a -n L - -' Location Map 0 250 ill Feet North Historic Preservation 3.15-225 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5WL.1317, 5AM.472 (UPRR-Dent Branch) Resource Description: The Dent Branch is a 39 mile long section of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) that ran through Weld and Adams Counties. The Weld County segment 5WL.1317.11 of the Dent Branch runs 2.9 miles within the APE (see Figure 3.15-115). The railway segment is abandoned, but rails, ties, and the ballasted roadbed remain in relatively good condition. A 3,500- foot freight bypass on the Dent Branch, located south of the Boulder Valley-Dent Branch once consisted of a multiple-track complex. South of that bypass, the track reverts to a single track alignment. Segment 5AM.472.1 is a 1.9-mile-long railway segment that follows the original single- track alignment in Adams County. Most of this segment has been abandoned. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination: The 0AHP has officially declared the UPRR-Dent Branch eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado. Although abandoned, these two railway segments retain integrity of location and association and therefore support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire UPRR- Dent Branch in Weld and Adams counties (5WL.1317, 5AM.472). Impacts to segment 5WL.1317.11 — Package A: The proposed new commuter rail line would join this existing historic rail line by approaching from the northwest, then crossing over to the east • side of the historic railroad, which it would closely parallel and follow southward. The commuter rail would utilize a double-track configuration, using the existing track alignment and adding a parallel track alignment following the historic UPRR-Dent Branch from the wye at St. Vrains junction southward. Where the new commuter rail line crosses the Dent Branch, there would be direct impacts to as many as 200 feet of track by the replacement of existing "through rail" with switching tracks and associated apparatus (see Figure 3.15-116). Although one of the new commuter rail tracks would run along the historic alignment, the existing historic bed, ballast and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Impacts to segment 5WL.1317.11 — Preferred Alternative: The proposed new commuter rail line would join this existing historic rail line by approaching from the northwest. The commuter rail would utilize the existing track alignment following the historic UPRR-Dent Branch from the wye at St. Vrains junction southward. There would be no direct impacts as a result of the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 3.15-117). Although the new commuter rail would run along the historic alignment, the existing historic bed, ballast and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Impacts to segment 5AM.472.1 — Package A: The new double-track commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the UPRR-Dent Branch and a new set of tracks parallel to the original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1317.11. The historic railroad bed, ballast, and grade would remain intact. The installation of new sets of tracks would be compatible with the historic use of the railroad line, but would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. • Historic Preservation 3.15-226 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 3.15-115 5WL.1317, 5AM.472 (UPRR-Dent Branch) — Segments Intersecting Project APE LEGEND ~ Historic Railroads and Ditches \ �.-�• Wallington '�'-� 1 /s/ Study Corridors - !85-1 r /\/ Highways i 1 ' ••\,� /\/ Arterial Roads 4,. _ S "1/4` Regional Study Area (%s% _ `"`"' •\ e City Boundaries ! furl Collins _ \ %a Cities & Towns in Project Area �' Atet 't 4 7 - 7 , i 1 I c'nath 4 Severance Eat t„ • �' Ii ; I -- Windsct t I. r-- - Greeley:_:, s. - 34 - 1_.; 263 . - - -Loveland Gardencny -a 34 r � , _ -- i r 1 -Evans • ; camvam (� t�strnm La Salle . If b�PIU I -� L. Berthoud � 0 MiII,kHt 85 / 56 f Giluest Ill I I i tvt• t�ct1 // Platteville 66 i._ I I ' I ()turnout . I— / lu,lone , . V.illy,a O i 0 f:I ff3IO14, is Niwot T7 a rtcdctrck 5WL.1317.11 if . - _ ..ir 4 � I 7 Llax o E.rt .u:it '' O arbarrel • v -{ _r Er,6 I 5 Boulder 7 V 4 Wattenbeg I • ,. . I' .11,,Pr•,, faj r. fi ...- _ I:zri•.� II . I 7 '' ms. tir a•J.err - _ \ '\. 5AM.472.1 �/ \ .\ 0 II I.,.:t. \ 287 a L.rnt , \ / T ,\ I r� / \�._ .-�� I , Denver��'--�..O lr /2 4 6 8 10 ' `'� I ' ' ' ' I Miles North +—.. _ i 0 .1 r t 1_ Historic Preservation 3.15-227 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. Figure 3.15-116 5WL.1317.11 (UPRR-Dent Branch) — Package A III .f___- A t I LEGEND I Historical Resources ` I ` t Package A Resource Impact i IPackage A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 1 ' 5WL. 1317. 11 Property Boundary ILPackage A Comm Rail Footprint =It : Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries 11 . Bridge / Culvert , • • 1.,..r A y # • J, ' F NNNINNN, y I NN ,, . pppyLp 't, a tq�' '.. - ' \ ' \d. vn4on p a i aCific \ ,tv Railroad 1 1 r — -* tt I 11111 . .... , •. .. . . __, f y . .. , . , . . _ _ _ _ . . , . .. ,� ' 200 Linear Feet Impacted • i I i • IA _ k1 +, awe. , i Y M r- ! ------- F ,j a t 2 ' J 1 / U a- I a Location Map\1 ' : `. , .r • c 0 300 It>,t•al I Feet North ( . ' ill Historic Preservation 3.15-228 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. 411 Figure 3.15-117 5WL.1317.11 (UPRR-Dent Branch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND I 16. Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact r Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary k 5WL. 1317.11 Resource Boundary _ Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint . Commuter Rail Design 1 Parcel Boundaries ... Bridge Guardrails ,;a r t K • } • • Union - Pa��fc 9ai/r r±* r { ad A d . -ter_ - _ • . No Direct Impacts / ' r 1 ti \% r- di'7 I •••••-ddimPIMPIMEMENNIMINIMIIENIII f.--s... / ' < i > . I -0001apareanal .....t s- .�..,..._.,_ V , w. 'n��.o \ \ e / t I ()cation Map • - -- 1...___ - - ' - - 0 300 , . i I Feet North 111 ... Historic Preservation 3.15-229 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Impacts to segment 5AM.472.1 — Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the UPRR-Dent Branch as described in segment 5WL.1317.11. The historic railroad bed, ballast, and grade would remain intact. The installation of new sets of tracks would be compatible with the historic use of the railroad line, and would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Summary Effect Determination: Package A: A 200-foot-section of existing rails would be replaced with modern switching track. A continuous 4.89 miles or approximately 12 percent of the entire linear resource would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, ballast and grade, and an additional new track, 15-feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new, but compatible rail use and infrastructural elements to the historic setting. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic UPRR-Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). Package B: No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locality. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package B would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic UPRR-Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). Preferred Alternative: A continuous 4.89 miles or approximately 12 percent of the entire linear • resource would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, ballast and grade of the historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new, but compatible rail use and infrastructural elements to the historic setting. The proposed transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic UPRR-Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). 5WL.1969. 5BF.130 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad. Denver& Boulder Valley Branchl Resource Description: This linear historic resource is the abandoned Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch (UPD&BVB)that ran a distance of 26-miles from Boulder to Brighton. The rail line was originally built in 1870. Two segments of this rail line in Weld County enter the project APE, including 2,310—foot (0.44 mile) long segment 5WL.1969.41, and 11,620 feet (2.2 mile) long segment 5WL.1969.1, both of which follow the original alignment (see Figure 3.15-118). Both segments are in a deteriorated state. One 2,083 feet (0.39 mile) long segment of the same rail line in Broomfield County is designated 5BF.130.1, and includes a contributing wooden trestle bridge carrying the rails over Little Dry Creek. Segment 5WL.1969.1 runs east-west 2,000 feet north of CR 8. This segment is a 2.2-mile long part of the abandoned UPD&BVB between Boulder and Brighton. Construction started in 1870. Rails and ties have been removed near 1-25 and parts have been paved over by county roads. This abandoned portion of the railroad includes a wooden trestle bridge located east of WCR 7 • and west of 1-25. The railroad bridge crossing 1-25 was removed soon after 1999. Historic Preservation 3.15.230 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIII . Figure 3.15-118 5WL.1969 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) - Segments Intersecting Project APE 1, i, LEGEND A/ Historic Railroads and Ditches - Study Corridors •! -•� /\/ Highways ! _ N'• - "/ Arterial Roads �� ['J Regional Study Area / Nice i \ City Boundaries ! Fort rollers \ o Cities & Towns in Project Area air i a 7 1 t ‘ Tinnath v Sewince fal;n S E\ I tir.a fly : i :ii 1 \ Greeley 1 341'—` i „ " Loveland Gar tnr�City, 34 I - I ' / La$alk: ji:unµirt. Johnstown / . iierthad _. I i Mika, 85 // 6 i fi • i Ill I I 1 w i • Piaui-ivl 6 t origami)? I 7 / • I I \-.., /5WL.1969.1 9 : o i New,' a , , . I � \l . Cxxthaire� ' o Die 5WL.1969.41 " o ,•_..s Wattarkxn ! I Boulder . r � ` ya :arayeire WWI ' ,... _--. -I -.` . `i=ce 56F.130.1 k----1:.---.H.NN. o . il O n: um)36 •/ .-r... \- - ;/ Derive r/: 4,s/_, 1 mami 77 ' I Q 1:.)\ i 0 2 4 6 8 10 ' , I ' r r ' ' Miles North L III as , ,......, ,.....2„....,_,......,,,,,rn.:. Historic Preservation 3.15-231 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Eligibility Determination: The OAHP has officially determined that the UPD&BVB is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado. Segments 5WL.1969.41 and 5BF. 130.1 retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5WL.1969.1 does not retain enough integrity to support the eligibility of the entire resource. Effect Determination: In order to determine the effect to the entire linear resource, impacts to each of the segments passing through the project APE were assessed. These impact assessments are presented below, followed by a determination of effect to the entire Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad in Weld and Broomfield counties (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.41 — Package A: The proposed new commuter rail under Package A would utilize the existing track alignment and add a parallel track alignment following the historic UPD&BVB in this area before joining the Dent Branch (5WL.1317.11) wye and turning southward. Where the new commuter rail line crosses onto the Dent Branch, there would be direct impacts to as many as 260 feet of track by the replacement of existing "through rail" with switching tracks and associated apparatus (see Figure 3.15-119). The existing historic bed, ballast and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.41 — Preferred Alternative: The proposed new commuter • rail under the Preferred Alternative would utilize the existing track alignment following the historic UPD&BVB in this area before joining the Dent Branch (5WL.1317.11) wye and turning southward (see Figure 3.15-120). The existing historic bed, ballast and grade along the entire extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.1 — Package A: The commuter rail would require a new bridge at the location of the wooden trestle bridge and a new 470-foot-long bridge spanning 1-25 .The original railroad bridge was demolished during a previous 1-25 highway widening project. A new bridge crossing would not be expected to negatively affect the historic setting beyond its already diminished integrity at this location. The new double-track commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the abandoned Boulder Valley Branch and a new set of tracks parallel to the original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1969.41 (see Figure 3.15-121). Additionally, the new double-track rail alignments would require a new supporting structure over an unnamed drainage at the historic wooden timber and log footer bridge (5WL.1969.1 Feature 1). This 47-foot-long by 17-foot-wide historic bridge would be demolished to make way for a new railroad bridge measuring approximately 60 feet long and 70 feet wide. • Historic Preservation 3.15-232 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation, transportation III Figure 3.15-119 5WL.1969.41 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) — Package A LEGEND r 1 Historical Resources I Package A Resource Impact it. t IPackage A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL. 1969.41 Property Boundary '' t QPackage A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design ThiParcel Boundaries ...... Bridge / Culvert 4 ot,, r. .. _ . .,.. A. or 1 .n, .....ot.... , w_,p.s.... _ _ __ act a._ , ii.... iitN,,,,., _ __ ,, , _ ._. _ 1i ti N 1 . NNNN .404414441/44k, 260 Linear Feet Impacted Ill IFIF: 11-1 ''''N•,, • it r i _... It I . I'" - L. I i \ Li. tirs 3i ., ,_ :.T. . _ -l• r 7 f ' J/ - Imo , F . I►' f - k - —1--- 1 1 4. 4 i 1 ? I 7 • 11 u ji iff Location Map,' r • I - + _ 0 200 l,\ -. alitill I Feet North Historic Preservation 3.15-233 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-120 5WL.1969.41 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, III Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) — Preferred Alternative LEGEND lALL Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL. 1969.41 Resource Boundary Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design CParcel Boundaries F. Bridge Guardrails lb .; 4 '4 . t. 1.' 4 4,4 '.*. - - - V , ; 1 No Direct Impacts It -- .. • I, y _ . Tt • . ... . . , .. , . .. , 4 .t_ . _ __. .. III .�s . . ..•,, k , � L \ t mi.i _ _ , I: It ; . . . : : I t is yy �i� �1F . 1 i. . -- 1 , �,. -. � r x . \ 4--i —. r w a ® I r. / 1, Location Map, , -- l I I 11\_C\ l I 0 200 I_I • Feet North , III Historic Preservation 3.15-234 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-121 5WL.1969.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) — Package A. YD 1 l Y 1 LEGEND �� 1 / It Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact 1, I Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL.1969.1 Property Boundaries $ Package AComm Rail/Highway Footprint _ • Commuter Rail/Highway Design Parcel Boundaries US Bridge /Culvert .s* Bridge would extend from original abutment of removed RR bridge r. • • New 470-foot-long - - - - _ _ _ bridge spanning 1-25 .\ NB -. .. SB o r - 300 'F �... . I Feat North iy I I ,.r f 11 '.•' • 1• \ • New GU-tool by 7U-tool wide bridge to r t accomodate new commuter rail tracks S 1 I Existing 47-foot by 17-toot wooden bridge would be demolished • Location Map \ [,/\ 200 Feet Nortr, Historic Preservation 3.15-235 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.1 — Package B: This segment originally bridged over 1-25, but the structure has been removed. Because Package B improvements occur at ground level within the span of the original bridge, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the railroad segment by improvements associated with Package B. Impacts to segment 5WL.1969.1 — Preferred Alternative: The commuter rail would require a new bridge at the location of the wooden trestle bridge and a new 470-foot-long bridge spanning 1-25 . The original railroad bridge was demolished during a previous 1-25 highway widening project. A new bridge crossing would not be expected to negatively affect the historic setting beyond its already diminished integrity at this location. The new commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the abandoned Boulder Valley Branch original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1969.41 (see Figure 3.15-122). Additionally, the new rail alignment would require a new supporting structure over an unnamed drainage at the historic wooden timber and log footer bridge (5WL.1969.1 Feature 1). This 47-foot-long by 17-foot-wide historic bridge would be demolished to make way for a new railroad bridge. Impacts to segment 5BF.130.1 — Package A: The new double-track commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the Boulder Valley Branch and a new set of tracks parallel to the original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1969.41 (see Figure 3.15-123). This historic rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. The new • rail line would run along the north side of the historic railroad grade. The installation of the double-track configuration for the commuter rail would also require a new supporting structure over Little Dry Creek. The existing 69-foot-long by 27-foot-wide wooden trestle bridge (5BF.130.1 Feature 1)would be demolished and a new bridge measuring approximately 75 feet long and 70 feet wide would be constructed at that site. Although new rail would be placed upon existing bed, ballast and grade and a new track placed adjacent to the historic alignment, this is a compatible affect to the historic use and setting of the historic railroad line, and would be expected to preserve an otherwise deteriorating resource. Impacts to segment 5BF.130.1 — Preferred Alternative: The new commuter rail would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the Boulder Valley Branch original alignment as described in segment 5WL.1969.41 (see Figure 3.15-124). This historic rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. The installation of the commuter rail would also require a new supporting structure over Little Dry Creek. The existing 69-foot-long by 27-foot-wide, wooden trestle bridge (5BF.130.1 Feature 1) would be demolished and a new bridge would be constructed at that site. Although new rail would be placed upon existing bed, ballast and grade, this effect is compatible with the historic use and setting of the historic railroad line, and would be expected to preserve an otherwise deteriorating resource. • Historic Preservation 3.15.236 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS . information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 3.15-122 5WL.1969.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) Preferred Alternative LEGENDgin CV Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact il Preferred Alternative Comm Rail , ROW Boundary , i icit_ 5WL.1969.1 Resource Boundary 4 • Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint 11 p - Commuter Rail Design CParcel Boundaries M Bridge Guardrails 41M.. Bridge would extend from original A abutment of removed RR bridge rrecr_ - . M VAS t' ,i, Imo _ a • _ 4 New 470-foot-long _�µ - � ' bridge spanning 1-25 A � -x� � ., / NB _ 0 300 IOU "I I � — III6_0_ Feet North V M y Nek• _ ,__ _.....rti,.... tr./ ii ,". ,. ,;8 _ .'` ',. A.:,_ i.�. '.y s...,.M�.+...w=..-.. ,r-e-r--- -rte • r \\ l , i r New bridge to accomodate i _ 1 ` new commuter rail tracks ii.ri - 1r r \ • t•I. �� __ Existing 47-foot by 17-foot wooden bridge would be demolished 'y- Location Map--:- - i vas \ o Zoo Fr!,AL LnJ Feet N . .., _. ' \ IIIHistoric Preservation 3.15-237 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.15-1235BF.130.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver 0 & Boulder Valley Branch) — Package A 4 r LEGEND i Historical Resources -' ; k - Package A Resource Impact ri*- Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5BF.130.1 Property Boundary `- _ Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries Ff Bridge /Culvert • \ . %e a Illsmosi: if •. 0 is Any J • La ey e/. an New Bridge approximately 75 feet by 70 feet ' -- • •-• - i , "6 Dry e 0 .� ;, I e .. I." ;1:. garf.:: ° lk 1 ' :r .4 I IIINfr I 1.,I. > :C. :11:47. 7. Sat/4 /,a r, .« �:` •:. dr ei.y .."-7 I•+ •' '" ter.i �-„ � • r. J :4, t' *' s virt pI-,',lj' r . 4t " - y Vii,!. . .b, . \0, • . i 1 • i r-- 1 Existing 69 foot by 27 foot wooden _ j trestle bridge would be demolished 1 • ./ }}lT -�•-- i +. • i . F_• '`r i ► I. - . c' ' •� \ #C*N41.r., . - s . NIL -0-4111e#41„.> 4 i n location Map :- � .''- 100 ® r. ` .Q- �, II=I Feet North d 0 Historic Preservation 3.15-238 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. IIIFigure 3.15-124 5BF.130.1 (Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch) — Preferred Alternative jLEGEND ' Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative Comm Rail - ROW Boundary • 5BF.130.1 Resource Boundary Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design L Parcel Boundaries 10. .. Bridge Guardrails i lb NN ao �e a0 et et I, - 1 Oh • p fir n y Br ' Oelch New bridge to accomodate N. commuter rail tracks � 0 ii %y *b. �e Dry C 1 its to cn 414% 11 Hi l‘441 il ILL . _ F _ s iti (' _ 1 I \k 2 _ ., c I 4PNi 'i Cxisting 69 foot by 27 foot wooden _Lv , trestle bridge would be demolished - / j .^ I I i , I i Location Map, } - IIIIN ' Nil A 0 100S ili t A- • di •- 'i=1 Feet North r/ -.i''; - I Historic Preservation 3.15-239 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Summary Effect Determination: Package A: A continuous 2.9 miles or approximately 11 percent of the entire linear resource would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, grade and ballast and an additional new track, 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new, but compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting. Demolition of two historic bridge features along the Boulder Valley Branch would result in direct impacts to the resource. These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that Package A would result in an adverse effect to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Package B: No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locality. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Package B improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Preferred Alternative: A continuous 2.9 miles or approximately 11 percent of the entire linear resource would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, grade and ballast of the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new, but compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting. Demolition of two historic bridge features along the Boulder Valley Branch would result in direct impacts to the resource. • These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource, and FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in an adverse effect to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Commuter Rail Stations 5LR.530 (Bimson Blacksmsith Shop—Little Thompson Valley Pioneer Museum' Resource Description: This building is located at 228 Mountain Avenue in downtown Berthoud. This small, one story stone commercial building was erected in 1893, and served as the shop of blacksmith A.G. Bimson prior to its use as a historical museum. Eligibility Determination: The Bimson Blacksmith Shop is listed on the NRHP and is eligible under Criterion A. Effect Determination — Package A: This historic property lies just outside the project construction disturbance footprint under Package A. There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but no impacts. This situation would not be a new or heightened condition from the historic period when train traffic was heavier. Local increased vehicular traffic to the adjacent commuter rail parking lot would not result in discernable indirect impact affecting the operation of the museum, or altering the function, setting, and other attributes that rendered the property NRHP-eligible. • Historic Preservation 3.15-240 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. No direct or incompatible indirect impacts would occur, and FHWA, FTA and CD0T have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. Effect Determination— Preferred Alternative: This historic property lies just outside the project construction disturbance footprint under the Preferred Alternative. There would be additional train traffic on the nearby railway tracks creating minor noise and vibration increases over current levels, but no impacts. This situation would not be a new or heightened condition from the historic period when train traffic was heavier. Local increased vehicular traffic to the adjacent commuter rail parking lot would not result in discernable indirect impacts affecting the operation of the museum, or altering the function, setting, and other attributes that rendered the property NRHP-eligible. No direct or incompatible indirect impacts would occur, and FHWA, FTA and CD0T have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to this historic resource. Queue Jumps Along US 85 5WL.5296 (Flagstone Residence—Goetzel) Resource Description: The historic Goetzel Residence is located at 3611 Idaho Street in Evans. This house is constructed of rusticated flagstone and was built in 1943. • Eligibility Determination: The house is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C, as an excellent example of a Bungalow-style house made of an unusual building material. Effect Determination: The creation of a queue jump in the vicinity of this historic dwelling involves reconfiguration of traffic lanes and markings within the existing US 85 roadway footprint. The queue jump consists of a modification to an existing signal light to allow buses to proceed through an intersection ahead of regular traffic on a separately timed green light. A short right-turn/bus-only lane is striped onto the existing outside lane of the highway to facilitate this bus movement. No new noise or intrusive transportation elements not already present along US 85 would occur with these improvements, and therefore no indirect effects are expected. These proposed changes would not result in any direct or indirect impacts. FHWA, FTA and CD0T therefore have determined that the proposed queue jump would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. 5WL.568 (Fort Vasquez' Resource Description: Fort Vasquez (5WL.568) is located in Platteville. Fort Vasquez Trading Post was built in 1835 and was the first permanent structure built along the South Platte River. This adobe outpost was near the Trapper's Trail and was built to be near the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, who provided buffalo robes to the trading post in trade for kettles, knives, guns, ammunition, blankets, beads and other items. After falling into a ruinous condition, Fort Vasquez was reconstructed in the 1930s by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the site is now operated as public museum. • Eligibility Determination: Fort Vasquez is listed on the NRHP. The site is significant under Criterion A for its role in the trapper and trader period (1800-1870) prior to the "Pikes Peak Historic Preservation 3.15-241 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Gold Rush," when riverside trails between trading posts were the main conduits for communication and early settlement along the Colorado Front Range. Effect Determination: The creation of a queue jump in the vicinity of Fort Vasquez involves reconfiguration of traffic lanes and markings within the existing US 85 roadway, and these proposed changes would not produce any direct impacts. The fort has been in close proximity to the modern highway for many decades. The queue jump consists of a modification to an existing signal light to allow buses to proceed through an intersection ahead of regular traffic on a separately timed green light. A short right-turn/bus-only lane is striped onto the existing outside lane of the highway to facilitate this bus movement. No noise or intrusive transportation elements not already present along US 85 would occur with these improvements, and therefore no indirect effects are expected. FHWA, FTA and CDOT therefore have determined that the proposed queue jump would result in no historic properties affected with respect to this historic resource. COMMUTER Bus STATIONS: GREELEY TO DENVER There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. COMMUTER BUS STATIONS: GREELEY TO DIA There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. MAINTENANCE FACILITIES There would be no impacts to historic properties on any of the maintenance facility sites or • carpool lots for Package A. 3.15.2.5 PACKAGE B TRANSIT COMPONENTS The transit components of Package B would potentially affect historic resources due to the placement of BRT station and park and ride locations. Specific consequences related to each transit component would be as follows. BRT: FORT COLLINS/GREELEY TO DENVER There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. BRT: FORT COLLINS/GREELEY TO DIA There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. BRT Stations There would be no impacts to any historic properties for this component. MAINTENANCE FACILITIES There would be no impacts to historic properties on any of the maintenance facility sites or carpool lots for Package B. Table 3.15-3 provides a summary of historic properties affected by component and also indicates how these impacts are treated from a Section 4(f) perspective. Detailed information • about Section 4(f) is contained in Chapter 5.0 Section 4(f) Evaluation of this Draft EIS. Historic Preservation 3.15-242 f g g a 2 e e c 0 2 1Z� 2 1p /f2 m� �t 7 - 2 % 72 ® oa , « @m > 0 ° ° > Q > e > m - \ . « � 3 ■ ■ yam 2# 22 2t ]t 2 & f z � § k _ oe % o � o ® o � o © o ° � . . w § o c 7 Q z z z z z ^� } < 0� cli k — . wf '\ � g ■ a § 0 k � $ � � � E 2 O u. 2 lb E k z \ \ z z k © a a z ao� f 6 ® @_ k 0) J u) .CL 0 § IN ttt § > 0 Q) > m U ft7foo+ 0 z z z z z w ® _ 2O k� -I ■ U In % 0. � u I CO 0 '0 O.I } / f } § ) 0 2 a 4. O § kQ Q - � � # ad 0 >1 rti E ® - (1) § § S S 2 n � ; § k � °t © © t 22 22 2 ILO ® m U O. ZE§ '0 ° 2 � 22 22 2 # Q ' § o ° % 2� 2� o © 2 ° o ° J Ili J C U Z ° Z Z Z Z Z , _ a a) § I� } kiii c, co � \ E e so (U E 7 / \ 0 k 2 1- O a ta 0 E 2 / \_ E © co 0 o > =22a - ® cu % c (N« X / COo ' e � @ kE 7cn � % oco 2oc � � It-u_ q » QS2 � » 7 • . 5 ' . § \ 2 � k j _j0) _1/ kk § \ $ k r@ ro rwuuo rom=m no@ - COk m § i win � o � m 7 A I §i m I it « ° 2 U 0 es .773 Ill> ' § § 20 o ≥ 2 � 2 7 � « 22 U � � k W 2 kf kk ■ 2 � : . 9 � .9 E > $ k k k in \ _i $ 5 ® i W \ E' $ � k 8 will 0.15 k co th ZR k UJ ® � k 1:3k� D b � § I $ k k k a � 2 ui EL co $ = k m + L e w ;� v kle \ E k k ; ® 0 m 40 ci- ■ ell m O. Ctu E m 2 ) t o § I- at a U g / + c � . 2 _ § e § > \ � k � 2 t §� E 25 2 % k % = 2 w a § 0 } 0 k _ 2 0.� t tk 0. / § W ° m @E to vt tz. o. (D/ 6 k } k 2 ct. 0 ». s 2 2 o 2 2 7 \ - .° '"oticc nkJ E �� kk �� % kk $ § � 05 � O§ � %% G/$ 23\ 2 / $ 0 \ 2 2 Cn 01 ei � � f � (g � k 0 E j: RI & 1-4 E S.E ° E k iZ 2 © C R �2 0 7 0 — -t") • . a x m m m m m m m _v lL to i m �O m y u) y l > d L 3 m ` o m mw m m >45 ` a,— t-, �' ,cl c Ct C E W CI) O O z to O m , m O m co Z m al Z m Z m CO Z m !Z E Z Z a Z o LLJ ai 0 y► y < O !11 �/'� F- w V m O C z N �f lu < C O n Q O + � 1... ca. _L w o W a d COC N 2 E N m O 8 cci U. aL } Z co } co > z co >- >- } } r z a w aa)) 4 I. i . Y 1 M Y to 8 C — c m .s y -o m = m m m m a a) y u 0 a) Q It a) m m m m m m m m O 4 N m m m �, to m CO W p > p 0 ca > m > > > > > > � W W - (J m Zara caa v m ccoo coo coo as m C 3 0 0 < 0 z z z z 0 O a hi- 0) V N a a, Z . v CO ILI E 0 Co aa)i O aa)i a) O aa)i N N al a) c a) — E z r >- z >- >- o — — ns 0 a d .41 U - H N • y I u3 U CJ el ii cn SI m (5,1 a) m cn m m m m m "C3 a � aa o > U °to r a) > � a) m � a)- a)� m� m � mu o ivi a)m = O. m L d m a m a`•Cm a m a m -ow a m a m = V C W t f6 m O W g m m CO W = m a= CO = to .ya Q J c O O z Ci co O m > O 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m O m W d1° U Z z Q Z z ZZZZ Q as co 3 m Y .4 h 10) L Q a. 3 12 Z aJ a To 0.4 E ea Ir (�C) a >- o > > Z > a, a, > > L 0. o cn x c E 2 C) _ le jCD C tD 11 Om aia°� � a�'i .12Lam. jom � � E L w ea to p O - O) Q' Cp Op to ,•=. .� f°U CO_ OLL O cn N 'O r) C CD m cn CO , T N ` N ,_ CV O Q T a co) C co D O co r C 7L m — •'m ry m co•w wU in m m co E • E O o`noia (a Morn � = Qx [Cm CeuZm > md ,- CCL C � CCm= CA ttoo0CL ur L" La o3 in_I ccoo�LL to_iC7 cJnci ccncn vJ) 2 uJ-)CDCL O — N N N N M aa, 0 2 0 U.I H jr; o ,- I Tr ai 7 v► M E c=n o= =oi= ii Q ar c . U Q Q 0 ca E y 0 0 0 N x 3 m a> co �e m vii a, ,.. `o > C d t N > y y 3 a) > 0 > " 5,.._ i- 4( W'a ` ` N N o d 05 u ca Is > > a, co as , . ..._. Z = v o0 o °' oo' ir o W FCe a- W a, a> Z 1) 49. N N a) 0 Z Z J R C Z ro 0 Z Z ... C z N w o Q A = C a o c o w° NE c� U. N � E ao aV i �V Lege V �a a) W a y h. z r 0 0 i aa, N aa, z Ce a) ., 4... } Z Z a> } } } a c _I 4 4 4 d i5 w co a N 3N h N = = tp talj CO o O flu = 0 > >+ Q a> u N W0 N a1 Q) 3 W AC V Z Z V V Z Z Z «. 6 3 , N ro O 2 F 3 h 3 co U L Q w O1 i st 0) aCO W� c = Z' cs. ea CO E 4, 0 a�'i as z 0) 0 O 0 v co } x m >- } c O co .1c O 4 u h p 4 4 V y . O 0 N = N N = N t0n En C • G/ N 0 d 0 > V > V = > V > V = a> 0 a> a>L. O u cm W E a> coo = a c m y 4co m co m _ W Q J C O O 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e W cum z z C0) z z V z z z a> Q o.re 3 cu t Q a ar o> i` 2' qj IL T2 Ei O c Ed o o o a) m Gs 00 z o' co >- z Z ro z } } u c chi C G 4 a. 4 U' 0 X o_ W a a) c o c7 w C C E 0 L .+ C. tp E N { 0 CO . N E — O xa � � ro =U � � >i � >^ E `o �LL rn o E Jio3 �s a° ia3 It' N- Eroa- .c co.0 O `)_� C ° 0-m CO a'-m CC E a>> CC $2 f N cn LOOM 20 u000Y u0000 u0KiUJ tto ]: soJE 1 r 0 .. O n M co N M 0) � >.611. 2 CC rn c o I C @ C W E O W 3 1—I a t .C aC> �O• m 0 p 0), '-2 RI a) crj E a O0OM EU cQ I . LL Q ao o m F. E o_ v w co 0 Q iDir / wits, § 8 ° 2 2 > •� 3 s� o�20t §� a>_ �- ) s � w2 , « 2 ; fit8t > o > u > t t z �� E Z 7% o �k /� }� �k fk J r CL ILI 7 J 7$ 2 z z z z z 2 2 / In 4 CA j < c a � 0 E § — . w § ( � a E g \ . k Wig\ � � 2v ) ■ _ L. _ ® — $ f k f f $ \ t z 41 al $ t. Q. $ 0 2 g II - § ' §= 2 ° ° 2 a) 2 ; § kt ) ) > 0 > 0 > 0 >0 2 + ■ a 'a'-- ° � a' ve - e o wIU Lli CS MCD 2 zei- z % z % z% z% � 2 � ... a % ; � a _ uQ ■ a 0 J � � 2 C. CO § 0 — & > k CO co / k } } as c o m 2 U ■ § k c k � V a) � E §� 2 2 » S q $ 2 2 ii %dll 0 ?, 2 el § ",5 0 tsk ) kt kt tt k� c t\ 2 t @® t IX \# ZEm2# 70 li 2 # O k2 X CO RI Ul 0 O D.CO0 � 00 z z 2 ° § z . Q & ■_ CM 1 aC /ad aa. / 0 % ■ 14 a � § a z ex 2 , -E E & \ 2 \ \ / >- . >- co 7 § O « El a o - § I ' & t t t 0 \ C \ v� $ § § o 2 /\ \ \ § k� �\ Cl)� to c 2\ _ { @ ®LR , r,O 'o �o ii ; � § uc � 2 � — fI- 5 _l- 5 2 d§ /2 /OD /Ou,O $/R /a) § 0 R I R gore m ® m 2 I -J >n I C1 � � � § oak � 7 �a� � } k § §/ � $ CO E /37 \ i827 2b\ ga E « / 0 ¢ § \j � k 0 eu @ c ccoo U V U a) t o N U o ≥ X6.m r V�i N .... a) a) a) a) a)a) y � a)! y • c ~ p c a1 — N ro to y >p> c. a) d a) b z u► W .C > > 1.- a) a) CO a CO ai > co co c.. > o_ W HOC coo > +y ro a) Z Z coo o ro o ro m NCB/ = z° z - zo 0 0 0 LW J C .d. C t Z Z Z I W g- Q al 7 ;" O g w � E c- c - E E rn a Q • `s 70 Ce ce o o a 'to O € IL a + a. w o o d 0 0 o m CD o Z c Ce ` d r ` 0 Z Z ` Z Z a) } } Z } } Z 4 m M 4 a co x co c c 1 c c) a) + °a > > ° O. W E v v d = O coo coc E m E .� W ro e O O ( Cme y Zw Zaa) ro y~ 3 e pm z z 0! O O V .1 O 0. I— 2 O1 u ro o a a d . V - ` N >, h y d • .O C C y m a) a) a) a) N u ri 'C3 + H ar a) a) a) y m y * 11--. m m« :. w u cm t a > > d m as 'o0 "011) a) -arovas -a a) Y d co la W .. > y > co cocam coy co co roU W dro V CO oa�i CO V Z CO Z Z 0 ZroZroZro (D G•E Z d Z o. Z N co a a) y a zm t a 1; d a � a :b) = 0 C o E 0 Z Z DJ O a) d o d a) 0 ,� � C) V CO Z )- } )- Z } } } ,� ca 'O 0 4 4 CO) Z 0C O L C U > C 0) O o L P L I.L co 4) 3 O U O C O L a ro '� -, C)V T 0 c�0 ,pp- tN •D r O d z LL Z O IL E LL y N 3 m Q .a) L V O ` o� a. ttj +' O. ch v1 a V CO I -0 O> O N N c c=1 :,- cD cn N U CO— O 0 a1 to O ►- N. d c) O O ; U o o co M a) rn= c > U-eO E 2a N 0 N .-.O c OW • E N o a j �� ca ro s CD Q d x-00'0 = c C Mc) -i = .. ai 1 aJ� a•a•3 > CI) U) N(7 to000 c'0J0 cc)I- m= mm 0U) mots 0 ccolr _J l 0 r 03 (NI c COv 'cv2 -� o M d N (0U) I Ircnc Crcnc W 0 LC) 0 � aOm `m= off `m-ZED o coo-- morn , 0 1- C ca t+) E 2 o'o= EU CC< EU c< it Q °� r E t a (J LIJa 0LLJ ULL a = 0 LU kJ a) S S # 2 > x 2 e. c a) a) a) b= «_ e w2 e § 20U § 22 c e �� ® o � k / \ / 0 0 § > UJ i- el $ < < o % < < In Li) _ � a 22 Z Z Z Z p 8 0 § k a � ) kE ce /j # 2 O I h. \ z k k 0 \ \ / >- z O. � 2 15 2 2 � R c, + k 0. � w ■ . O Rc () o • ; ® ) U © � aQ. to. ii 2 % CO 8. W� a 4) E e Ca 0 2 0 0 U E k 0 k O . h 0 ›, Xi & k k a) § & S § 0 eui ICI + , u © �' c e r)t-• et �. � , 5 5o 2 . ; e r. IS ` 0t m a) � ° � © > O > O 2 2 u c� 0 22 2# 2© 2= co CU < -2 0z / \ 2 ° k � § ° } ° / \ k 0 iu cat U < < < « 4.0 % c t < 2a § aja � E CO gtE / , E co 0 — \ } / \ 2 CO LO COI)- a) >- / u t-V 2 0 _ 3 Z ou_ 1On = 2 2 © t / 1:2 co E � § e a � ° 3 / $ ] 2 % �2f E ) igr \� k � � f �f20Cl)U) nt© ` 5 \ >, co # % — ok � Gs � a % le \2= � 2kf92Rc 0 CO2 § 2jm� E mh- 7co ! $ $ > % > 00 > •-> uO �Oa 00 u)O Z gingrm () u, fu,s Cil k 2 o ° � e mo \ � 0 � k « a� CC { 2e m - = q 0 \ § I-f& 5EoO ® 0 E eo® t± E '- LZ 2 ° U o _i EE & � 0 etl 2 0 0 us § ; m k / ) k "0' { r ! \ k k ko k ka) \ e �_ w ©% > k Cl) C) C) Z o = • _ -o> t \ w �Le 3$ � 0 o o o -c, J 0 rq / < kk , Z Z Z Z � � S $ = 0 IC ■ LU g ) LL CL E / •k } / o cn @ Z st CZ 73 as 0- � � a C 0 a CO a) k 0 Ill 2 CO c0 g w e . U o _i@ o < Mit ) to < g - 2 � � ■ E m Z CU 0 CO C 0 k / U a U § k a 2 © © 2 m ] ) it ,_ • + , v flflflfl % % $ ; ' ® s § c - Clo 7 © t a) q Uj • § z z z z z > \ 0 o' co & x ace ) k kCL � ® m ■ - El § co `z 0. 0 § I al / k 2 } o co \ 0° k k u a. ct —. _ 0 u - 5 Fao 4 O u » 2 K a- > >, m co k § � � w � - � 2 � ) c2 * « 0E2 ro � o - 5 � : 6 : - 0 - 2c a) > _ c =tea c•-• TtEwowm66 a � c > � c § a. 06NMmm Qway « �Y = ate 6 � _ -o § - NEm ,_ -ci # c §ta) e$ � m0= nt � � 0343 _c a2 - E -i � S� o_ c —I > - 9@22m > FFe73o R . o § � ¢ 'a@Emk4Se § Ek \g$ § LoCeLoor_i inn r=Wcrc CI.ICrmcLocaaCemm — � k I � fk / f \ J Z zw � � kk2< RI & rn E E C) 2 _ � � E,- � Ecm � 2 « - /2}I o._J [—I � 0 N U U • 1.1 ir cn K co .. ::-..g G) G) U in 'i W cocu N H W C d roco N N N U in v t00 U o W H� in m z O.� z Q� ≥ -10 a a) N ,0 t_..... C 0 O I" " 3 ... G) > f rNlin (n J QTS � Z Z Q K m i (0 N w a J 0 Q. w 111 c W CI > O Oi E W mas CL ES u0 1) U Q FO- O FLi W 7 O. L Oo Li.W IO N Z 0 Z 0 z a .d. >+ �9 7 .• z a dm a` LU of a CD 0 W a(o Q'a cC 3cn a. a ai L L a-0 CA C d _ m t0 a) a) a U a) O 0 a) + c ce) N W _ W m d.0 "� R U C < U>H w U G) y C N _ Y CO c a> U a.a 4- Ir v I. a k 19 A H U a) G) m a) v a a) v °' 4> (0 a W 0 > C v 4 N a) m a� o a o O. FO- to .g CO u >o c •o a a W m ''- CO Ln a V > Q 0 `„ o mN 0 IC 411, N 7 W a) > O j V YO f +0 O L' a) y d y r Q) TA 0 a) G) 00 .) N O V N V w v cm W a m y ma) o o 4 ti a- X (o Ls v-, '5 0 z O z am z am w E a) '- a� U O.� y - aoi ) a 0 ' o " �" t Q a a' w i o a ("n v, u ~ a G, a �° E a "X ,_ .- c 0 E tz o o 0 o O hp �� .. Z z Z Z a v 0 ro O 2 N (n .., L. a co y 1.., 6 _ i. .. a) a) C 00 L a`) a`) Li) O 3 W N U '>> - U 0 V >. E O C E E 12 0 ' 0 a 0 p d O m co U I N Q O C O ft '' a Ud' > ca y W U as O a N '' = is: 2 i70 v p m g c c— (O U) Ch t y h o. � .. 0Q0 c In 8 o rn a i >u?> Y dm c J O N J L a) G) O ? O Q J �' U Gl) u)(I)0 (nm V) cC)LLCO (0LL d d « U a) W. ' N L 0 eo `—• 'O U) C4 cn � v, N a c c y 3 O c W N O :: OQ -' earn d oow 0) l0 3 a 0 m ``-' a)oU) I.. i_ a CD N LI. QaJ O Eu)H a) p a a a 0 a o. o • - r) .� d H Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures During the development of all build packages, modifications were employed to avoid and minimize effects to historic properties and resources whenever possible. These modifications included shifting the roadway alignment to avoid direct contact with historic boundaries and resources, consolidating roadway templates to minimize space needed for roadway improvements, and bridging of linear features. Possible mitigation measures for historic property impacts are summarized in Table 3.15-4. Mitigation measures for adverse effects will be part of an MOA among CDOT, FHWA, FTA, and SHPO and will be specific to those resources for which the project results in an adverse effect. Actual mitigation measures will be refined after identification of the preferred package, consultation with SHPO, and preparation of the Final EIS. 3.15.3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE There are no adverse effects to historic properties, therefore no mitigation is needed. 3.15.3.2 PACKAGE A During the design phase of this project, designs were altered to avoid historic structures where possible. The commuter rail alignment was moved to avoid the historic Dickens Farm on SH 119 as an example. There were, however, three historic buildings that would be acquired and demolished or relocated to a different site to provide space necessary to construct • improvements for Package A. Adverse impacts would occur for two historic buildings in Longmont—the Old City Electric Building, 5BL.1245 ,the Colorado & Southern / BNSF Depot, 5BL.1244, and for one historic building in Erie, the Hingley farmhouse, 5WL.5263, on WCR 7. All three of these buildings would be removed for development of Package A. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect would occur to the Jillson Farm where 7.34 acres would be acquired for construction of new commuter rail infrastructure. This is considered an adverse impact because of the introduction of railroad tracks and train traffic to the historic farm setting where it has never been a part of the setting. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect would result from placing 316 feet of the Louden Ditch in new and extended culverts. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect to the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver and Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969)would result from the demolition of two wooden trestle bridges. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Historic Preservation 3.15-252 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.15.3.3 PACKAGE B An adverse effect would result from placing 357 feet of the Louden Ditch in new and extended culverts. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. 3.15.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE During the design phase of this project, designs were modified to avoid or minimize impacts to historic structures where possible. The commuter rail alignment was moved to avoid the historic Dickens Farm on SH 119 as an example. In addition, the Old City Electric Building and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot were avoided through the design technique of single- tracking the commuter rail corridor. There was, however, one historic building that would be acquired and demolished or relocated to a different site to provide space necessary to construct improvements for the Preferred Alternative. Adverse impacts would occur for a historic building in Erie, the Hingley farmhouse, 5WL.5263, on WCR 7. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect would occur to the Jillson Farm where 7.34 acres would be acquired for construction of new commuter rail infrastructure. This is considered an adverse impact because of the introduction of railroad tracks and train traffic to the historic farm setting where it has never been a part of the selling. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado • Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect would result from placing 316 feet of the Louden Ditch in new and extended culverts. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. An adverse effect to the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver and Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969) would result from the demolition of two wooden trestle bridges. Detailed recording, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Historic Preservation 3.15-253 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.15-4 Mitigation Measures—Historic and Archaeological Preservation Impact Impact Type Mitigation Measures Removal or impact to historic Permanent ► Avoidance and minimization will be addressed structure first. ► Memorandum of Agreement with parties will be established. ► Colorado Historical Society Standards Level II Documentation will be provided. Impact to a portion of a historic Permanent ► Avoidance and minimization will be addressed property first. ► Colorado Historical Society Standards Level II Documentation will be provided. P. Memorandum of Agreement with parties will be established. Impact to archaeological resource Permanent ► If subsurface archaeological remains are exposed during any phase of construction, all activities in the vicinity of the discovery will cease and the CDOT Senior Staff Archaeologist will be contacted. Consultation with the SHPO and any pertinent consulting parties will be conducted, as necessary. Work will not proceed until authorization from the CDOT Archaeologist • has been provided. Indirect effects from construction Temporary/ ► Construction disturbances will be controlled and activities Construction minimized. ► All disturbed areas will be returned to their original configuration to the extent possible. Indirect effects to some or all Temporary/ ► Precautionary measures, such as applied resources: Dust and debris Construction palliatives to reduce impact of dust will be implemented. ► Contractor training to prevent flying debris effects will be implemented. Indirect effects to some or all Temporary/ ► Planned construction staging will be provided to resources: visual, auditory, Construction avoid these effects whenever possible. accessibility ► Signage and well marked alternate routes for access will be provided. ► Landscape context sensitive design will be employed to minimize intrusive effects of transportation features. ► Noise barriers will be constructed as warranted. • Historic Preservation 3.15-254 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.15.4 Native American Consultation Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800.2[c][2][ii]) mandate that federal agencies coordinate with interested Native American tribes in the planning process for federal undertakings. Consultation with Native American tribes recognizes the government-to- government relationship between the United States government and sovereign tribal groups. In that context, federal agencies must acknowledge that historic properties of religious and cultural significance to one or more tribes may be located on ancestral, aboriginal, or ceded lands beyond modern reservation boundaries. Consulting tribes are offered the opportunity to identify concerns about cultural resources and comment on how the project might affect them. If it is found that the project would impact properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and are of religious or cultural significance to one or more consulting tribes, their role in the consultation process may also include participation in resolving how best to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. By describing the proposed undertaking and the nature of any known cultural sites, and consulting with the interested Native American community, FHWA, FTA and CDOT strive to effectively protect areas important to American Indian people. In April 2004, FHWA and FTA sent letters jointly to fifteen federally recognized tribes with an established interest in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Jefferson, Larimer and/or Weld Counties, Colorado, with an invitation to participate as consulting parties: • ► Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma (two tribes administered by a unified tribal government) ► Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Comanche Nation of Oklahoma ► Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma ► Northern Arapaho Tribe (Wyoming) ► Northern Cheyenne Tribe (Montana) ► Oglala Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma ► Rosebud Sioux Tribe (South Dakota) ► Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Colorado) ► Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota) ► Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Colorado) ► Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Agency (Utah) • ► White Mesa Ute Tribe (Utah) Historic Preservation 3.15-255 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The Kiowa Tribe and Pawnee Nation responded in writing to the initial solicitation, each indicating a desire to be a consulting party for the undertaking. In June, July and August 2004, a CDOT representative placed a series of telephone calls to the remaining non-responsive tribes, and a second invitation letter was sent out to several tribes upon their request, in an effort to answer questions about the project and facilitate additional tribal participation. Five tribes responded positively to this follow up contact (Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and Southern Ute Indian Tribe), for a total of seven consulting tribes. Documentation related to the consultation process is located in Appendix E. None of the tribes raised specific concerns or issues beyond an acknowledgement that their ancestors were residents of northeastern Colorado, and that sites of religious and cultural significance, including human remains, could possibly be located within the North 1-25 APE. In response to this concern, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT will specify clear procedures to be followed should archaeological resources and/or human remains be unexpectedly encountered during construction, to include notification of the consulting tribes. Additionally, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT committed to keeping the consulting tribes apprised of progress as the project developed, and to include them in the project planning and development process, at the tribes' discretion. As a result of these actions, FHWA and FTA have fulfilled their joint legal obligations for tribal consultation under federal law. • • Historic Preservation 3.15-256 Hello