The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112393.tiff NorthN oRm I-25 EIS . 25 information, cooperation. transportation . Erivirorimori ,.. A Il 8 Tipact . .. • State Pilerit . a . , _ .. . , . .. . _ __ _ , . ___ . _ . .... _ . _ . , _ _ ,.._ , __ ,____. _ .__mr.rilre-' .-- a , - ' .^;`' �.IlL _. A •'a t 1 U \ I -7 et CI [ . . - .. . 2_!als:', .---.- 44 \ - 1 M li _ �. i j ) .. 4 . . . 4 .47:4trite. ..',.:T. _ .. �' � tSry.�j. e , L.'" ,:;:. 3+h� i "Y1; Stir1/4. 'kk.h.•�.,41 .1 ri) r file. PP H . "1177.". 11.0.1' : - -14 - : of 3 2011 -2390 ii VOLUVE 1. _____ 7 . DOI iii 2011 -2391 -lepartmmtof Tramp°.tot,on �1Federal Highway !ill 2011 -2392 Administration August 2011 -2393 ANALYSIS • FINANCIAL t - it k N ORTH I-25 EIS information . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 2 A financing strategy for the Preferred 3 Alternative identified through the NEPA What's In Chapter 6? 4 process is required prior to the signing of I. the Record of Decision (ROD). As a Chapter 6 Financial Analysis condition of the ROD, the Preferred 6.1 Capital Costs 6.2 Operating &Maintenance(O&M) Alternative, or a phase of the Preferred Costs Alternative, must also be included in the 6.3 Revenue Projections fiscally-constrained, long range regional and 6.4 Annual Cash Flow Assessment statewide transportation plans. Fiscal 6.5 Cost Per User constraint implies that there is a reasonable 6.6 Summary of Funding Shortfall expectation that funding will be available to implement the projects and activities identified in the plan. Because there are insufficient funds to construct any one of the build alternatives in their entirety, the project selected in the ROD will be a logical phase of the Preferred Alternative that demonstrates independent utility. With a ROD to be issued after the Final EIS public hearing and comment period, CDOT, FHWA and FTA will select an initial phase (Phase 1). Phase 1 will be fiscally-constrained (i.e., it will have a probable cost equal to or less than the amount of money in the Regional Transportation Plans dedicated to improvements in this corridor) with the next phase of work included in the STIP. As additional funding becomes available, the Regional Transportation Plans will be amended and CDOT/FHWA/FTA may issue revised or subsequent ROD(s) to implement subsequent phases, working toward implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety. This chapter presents a summary of project cost estimates (capital as well as operating and maintenance [O&M])for the build packages and the Preferred Alternative, a review of existing funding sources that are available to fund the project, and a discussion of the funding gap. All estimated costs and revenues are presented in 2009 dollars with the exception of the discussion on the Cost Estimate Review that provides information on costs based on anticipated year of expenditure. The cost estimates for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative are presented in Chapter 8 Phased Project Implementation. 6.1 CAPITAL COSTS This section presents a summary of capital costs for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Detailed descriptions of these alternatives, which provide a basis for the cost estimates, are found in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Cost estimates are based on the latest unit cost information available for the types of construction and procurement items, and are in accordance with industry accepted procedures. These costs are inclusive of contingencies, utilities, engineering and right-of-way acquisition. 6.1.1 Package A Package A consists of new 1-25 general purpose lanes, new US 85 and E-470 commuter bus service, and new commuter rail service. Table 6-1 provides Package A capital cost, which are presented in 2009 dollars. Financial Analysis 6-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1111 Table 6-1 Package A Capital Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) Item I-25 General US 85/E470 Commuter Rail Total Purpose Lanes Commuter Bus Construction $773 $6 $586 $1,365 Utilities $35 0.4 $18 $53 Engineering $200 $1.6 $139 $341 Right-of-Way $88 $5.8 $35 $129 Legal Insurance N/A N/A $18 $18 Vehicles N/A $4.5 $52 $57 Total Package $1,096 $18.3 $848 $1,963 Cost Costs are shown in Millions. N/A=Not Applicable 6.1.2 Package B Package B consists of new 1-25 tolled express lanes from SH 14 to 84th Avenue and new bus rapid transit (BRT) service on 1-25, E-470, US 34 and Harmony Road. The tolled express lanes would be managed through a toll pricing strategy. The tolled express lanes assume two-direction, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes to 84th Avenue. Table 6-2 provides the Package B capital costs, which are presented in 2009 dollars. • Table 6-2 Package B Capital Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) Item I-25 Tolled Express Bus Rapid Total Lanes Transit Construction Items $1,141 $86 $1,227 Utilities $53 $6 $59 Engineering $294 $22 $316 Right-of-Way $101 $2 $103 Vehicles N/A $10* $10 Total Package Cost $1,589 $126 $1,715 Includes feeder bus Costs are shown in Millions. N/A=Not Applicable 6.1.3 Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative consists of new 1-25 general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes, ' 1 new express bus service on Harmony Road, US 34, 1-25 and E-470, new US 85 commuter bus 12 service, and commuter rail service. Table 6-3 provides the Preferred Alternative capital costs, which are presented in 2009 dollars. • Financial Analysis 6-2 Final EN NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 6-3 Preferred Alternative Capital Cost Estimate (2009 dollars) Item 1-25 Lanes Express Bus/ Commuter Rail Total Commuter Bus Construction $1,000 $74 $361 $1,435 Utilities $46 $5 $11 $62 Engineering $258 $19 $86 $363 Right-of-Way $99 $16 $26 $141 Legal Insurance N/A N/A $11 $11 Vehicles N/A $12 $154 $166 Total Package $1,403 $126 $649 $2,178 Cost Costs are shown in Millions. N/A=Not Applicable 2 6.1.4 Cost Estimate Review 11- In support of the cost estimates described above, a Cost Estimate Review (CER) was 4 conducted on the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 by CDOT with guidance from FHWA. The CER is required by FHWA for projects that are estimated to cost more than $500 million. The objective of the review was to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the current CDOT • total cost estimate and schedule and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the project's current stage of development. The CER is a risk-based probability assessment. The process provides an estimated range for each element and then aggregates the elements to provide an overall estimate at different probability levels. The process identifies opportunities and threats that would impact the • project cost. Costs are estimated in year of expenditure (YOE). YOE accounts for escalation in costs that is expected to occur over time for projects constructed in future years. The process estimates 70 percent probability, meaning the project would have a 70 percent chance of being constructed for year of expenditure costs identified. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the North 1-25 Project Cost Estimate Review— Final Report(FHWA and CDOT, 2010), which is included as a technical report to this Final EIS. Key results of the CER: • ► The CER process identified a Preferred Alternative project cost estimate of$2.178 billion in 2009 dollars and $7.712 billion in YOE. • ► The current Phase 1 estimate is $669.9 million (2009 dollars). Through the FHWA's CER process, at the 70 percent level of confidence in YOE dollars, this cost increases to $1.271 billion (YOE). This means that the project has a 70% likelihood of costing less than $1.271 billion, taking into account inflation as Phase 1 is implemented. This is the minimum level of revenue that must be identified for the project for the approval of the Major Project Financial Plan as required by FHWA. The revenue would be summed based 7 on the value of the revenue for the year that it is expected. • ► Project schedule could potentially lower or increase YOE cost. For example, for each year Phase I is delayed, the project cost is expected to increase by approximately $48 million. Financial Analysis 6-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • This is consistent with the results of the analysis showing that the most significant influence 2 on the project cost was the escalation of the construction costs." 6.1.5 Current Allocated Funding 4 There are limited existing funding sources available to fund construction for the North 1-25 corridor transportation improvements. Sources that have been identified from the Regional 6 Transportation Plan (RTP) and other sources as shown in Table 6-4: 7 Table 6-4 Available Existing Funding Sources for the Preferred Alternative (2009 dollars) Type DRCOG NFR UFR Total CMAQ' N/A $23.1 $6.3 $29.4 STP-Metro 23 N/A $15.8 N/A $15.8 7th Pot N/A $250.1 N/A $250.1 Strategic Projects—After 7th Pot 4'6 $98.8 $52.6 N/A $151.3 Congestion Relief 6 $2.1 N/A N/A $2.1 US 34/Centerra Parkway Interchange N/A $15.8 N/A $15.8 I-25: $172.4 N/A N/A US36 to Thornton Pkwy/84th Ave $172.4 1-25: SH7 Interchange $51.5 N/A N/A $51.5 • Total $324.8 $357.4 $6.3 $688.4 Funding sources are shown in Millions. t Assumes 70%of NFR CMAQ Tier 1 funding AND 50%of UFR's$500k annual allocation 2Assumes 70%of NFR STP-Metro Tier 1 Funds 3 NFR CMAQ and STP-Metro include 2035 RA minus FY08-FY11 RA 4Assumes 50%of RA Post 7th Pot funds allocated to R4 6$50M from NFR approved 6Assumes 50%of RA Congestion Relief allocated to R4 Revenues based on 2008 - 2035 Revenue Allocations (December, 2006); constant 2008 dollars inflated to constant 2009 using inflation factor of 1.051.Values are rounded. N/A=Not Applicable Commuter rail ROW preservation (without construction of the commuter rail) is not eligible for federal funds (CMAQ, STP-Metro, Congestion Relief). • Financial Analysis 6.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 1 6.1.6 Capital Cost and Revenue Summary 2 Table 6-5 compares the capital cost estimate for each package to the available funding based on the current fiscally constrained regional transportation plans. As shown, Package B and the 4 Preferred Alternative both have a larger portion of their capital cost covered at 40 percent and 32 percent, respectively. Package A has somewhat less funding available because it does not include improvements or funding along 1-25 south of SH 7 or at the SH 7/1-25 interchange 7 (shown under DRCOG revenues in Table 6-4). Table 6-5 Capital Cost and Revenue Estimate Comparison (2009 dollars) Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Capital Cost Estimate $1,963 $1,715 $2,178 Available Revenue $465 $688 $688 Percent of Capital Cost Funded 24% 40% 32% Costs and revenue estimates are shown in Millions. 6.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Both highway and transit improvements will have ongoing operating and maintenance • (O&M) costs. These estimates are summarized in the follow section. 6.2.1 Transit O&M Costs Transit O&M costs include the costs associated with providing and maintaining a certain 4 level of bus or rail service. A large percentage of these costs are for salaries/wages and fringe benefits for drivers, mechanics, and administrative staff. Other items include fuel/lubricants, materials/supplies, utilities, and insurance. - In accordance with industry accepted procedures, annual O&M cost estimates were developed based on unit costs for three types of service; local and feeder bus service, premium bus service, and rail service. For modifications to local bus service and for feeder bus services using conventional buses, an hourly service cost was applied based on hourly rates of North Front Range operators. For premium bus service which was assumed for regional commuter bus, express bus, or BRT services, a higher hourly service cost was applied, based on RTD's hourly rate for similar bus services. For rail service, O&M costs are based on a commuter rail cost model, developed primarily with Virginia Railway Express (VRE) reported cost data for 2003. All costs are expressed in 2009 dollars. O&M cost _ estimates are broken down by type of service in Table 6-6. • Financial Analysis 6.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 6-6 Annual Transit O&M Cost Estimates (in 2009 dollars) Component Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Feeder Bus and Local Bus Service $5.4 $3.8 $2 Commuter Bus Express Bus $4.7 $8.4 $7.2 Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail $28.2 N/A $31.7 Total Transit O&M Cost $38.3 $12.2 $40.9 Costs are shown in Millions. N/A=Not Applicable 2 6.2.2 Highway O&M Costs Annual O&M costs for highway improvements were estimated by assuming an average cost 4 of$14,150 per lane-mile (2009 dollars). This is based on actual maintenance costs for the 1-25 corridor from MP 243 to MP 269 for the years 2001 through 2005. Package A includes approximately 475 lane-miles of roadway, Package B includes approximately 604 lane- 7 miles of roadway, and the Preferred Alternative includes approximately 633 miles of roadway. O&M costs for revenue collection from the tolled portion of the managed lanes were • determined for this project on the basis of tolled express lane traffic forecasts. Table 6-7 presents projected annual highway O&M cost estimates in 2009 dollars both in total cost as well as the incremental cost in excess of the No-Action estimate. 1 Table 6-7 Annual Highway O&M Cost Estimates (in 2009 dollars) Component No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Total Lane Miles 410 475 604 633 Highway Lane Maintenance $8.55 $5.80 $6.72 $8.96 Cost Tolled Express Lane O&M Cost N/A N/A $1.81 $1.80 Total Hwy O&M Cost $5.80 $6.72 $10.36 $10.76 Incremental Cost Over N/A $0.92 $4.56 $4.95 No-Action Costs are shown in Millions. N/A=Not Applicable 1 6.3 REVENUE PROJECTIONS The transit services included in the build packages have the potential to generate revenue to cover a portion of the operating and maintenance cost described previously. The tolling facility has the potential to generate revenues in excess of the operating and maintenance costs • anticipated. This section describes the revenue estimates for both tolling and transit Tf improvements. Financial Analysis 6-6 Final EN NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 6.3.1 Transit Farebox Revenues Potential farebox revenues were estimated by determining the projected annual transit 3 riders for each build package, and applying fare assumptions. Fares were estimated by examining RTD's actual fare recovery by boarding and the fare recovery experienced by FREX. As with many transit agencies, the fare recovery can differ significantly from the posted, walk-up fares. This difference is attributable to discounts such as monthly passes, senior tickets, and employer-subsidized programs such as RTD's Eco Pass. Currently, there is no regional transit agency in Northern Colorado. Without an existing entity in place, RTD's fare structure and fare recovery ratios were considered to be a reasonable proxy for fares that might be charged for long, interurban transit trips. Resulting farebox revenue projections for the build packages are provided in Table 6-8. Table 6-8 Potential Annual Farebox Revenues and Recovery Ratios (2009 dollars) Build Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Fare Annual Annual Fare Annual Annual Fare Annual Annual Fare Mode Recovery/ Riders Revenue Riders Revenue Riders Revenue Trip (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) Commuter Rail ' $5.50 1.09 $6.01 N/A N/A 0.70 $3.86 Commuter Bus 2 $2.89 0.43 $1.24 N/A N/A 0.10 $0.30 BRT 2 $2.89 N/A N/A 1.77 $5.11 N/A N/A Express Buse $2.89 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.88 $2.55 • Feeder Bus3 $0.96 1.09 $1.05 0.44 $0.42 0.43 $0.41 Total 2.61 $8.30 2.21 $5.53 2.11 $7.12 'Based on RTD 2009 fare recovery for SkyRide($4.86/trip)and FREX($7.00/trip) 2 Based on RTD 2009 fare recovery for regional services($2.89/trip) 3 Based on RTD 2009 fare recovery for local suburban service($0.96/trip) N/A=Not Applicable 6.3.2 Tolled Express Lane Toll Revenues Traffic and potential toll revenues are based on an estimate of the amount of traffic willing to pay a toll of$X to save Y minutes. As traffic shifts to the lanes, the travel time in the general • purpose lanes (and therefore, the amount of time savings offered by the tolled express lanes) will change. Initial toll rate assumptions ranged from $0.05 to $0.50 per mile. Toll rate • assumptions were then modified up to $1.75 per mile to reduce demand in congested "hot spots". Resulting annual toll revenue projections for the tolled express lanes are shown in Table 6-9. This Final EIS analysis assumes vehicles with two or more people per auto would travel in the tolled express lanes free of charge. A supplemental revenue analysis • requiring three or more people per auto was conducted for the Preferred Alternative. It was • conducted for the Preferred Alternative because it has somewhat less tolling capacity than Package B and would therefore see a larger change in toll revenue under an HOV 3+ scenario than Package B. The results are included in the table. • Financial Analysis 6.7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 6-9 2035 Potential Tolled Express Lane Annual Toll Revenues (2009 dollars) Toll Scenario Package B Preferred Alternative HOV 2+ $4.53 $2.79 HOV 3+ Not analyzed $10.52 Revenues are shown in Millions. 6.4 ANNUAL CASH FLOW ASSESSMENT Annual O&M costs and revenue projections presented in Section 6.2 Operating 4 & Maintenance (O&M) Costs and Section 6.3 Revenue Projections were used to complete an annual cash flow assessment. 6.4.1 Transit Cash Flow Assessment As shown in Table 6-10 Package A farebox revenues are anticipated to cover about 20 percent of the annual transit O&M costs. Farebox revenues would cover 45 percent of the annual transit O&M costs for Package B, and 17 percent of annual transit O&M cost • estimates for the Preferred Alternative. Transit forecasts were not completed for 2015 (Opening Year) or any other interim years. Thus, it is not possible to evaluate farebox • revenue projections and anticipated O&M cost-funding shortfalls on an annual basis. Table 6-10 Annual Transit Fare Recovery Estimates (2009 dollars) • Build Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Fare Revenues $8.3 $5.5 $7.1 Operating Cost $38.3 $12.2 $40.9 Farebox Recovery 22% 45% 17% Transit fare recovery are shown in Millions. N/A=Not Applicable • 6.4.2 Highway Cash Flow Assessment As shown in Table 6-11, revenues generated by the tolled express lanes in Package B and the Preferred Alternative would exceed the projected operating and maintenance costs for 17 the tolled express lanes. Package B toll revenues would also nearly match the entire new • incremental operating and maintenance cost associated with Package B highway • improvements. The Preferred Alternative would cover over 50 percent of the new highway _. operating and maintenance costs. Because there is no tolling associated with Package A, it 21 provides no cost recovery. 22 Financial Analysis 6-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 6-11 Annual Toll Revenue Estimates Compared to Operating and Maintenance Cost (2009 dollars) Build Alternative Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Toll Revenues N/A $4.53 $2.79 Toll Operating Cost N/A $1.81 $1.80 Toll Recovery Ratio 0 2.50 1.55 Total New Highway O&M Cost $0.92 $4.56 $4.95 Total Recovery Ratio 0 0.99 0.56 Toll revenue and O&M cost are shown in Millions. N/A=Not Applicable 6.5 COST PER USER 4 Table 6-12 summarizes the cost per user for each package by each travel mode and by the 5 Package in its entirety. The "cost per user" is not what the user would pay but instead reflects the average cost over all users of the public investment. User fares/tolls would only cover a - portion of this cost. The cost per user figures were calculated by adding annual operating and maintenance costs to the annualized capital costs. Capital costs were annualized over a 30-year period. Annual revenues collected from tolls and transit fares were then subtracted 1 . from the total. The resulting total was divided by the number of annual users. A second calculation was made to estimate the cost of auto ownership associated with each alternative. • To estimate this, annual vehicle miles of travel (on 1-25 only) was multiplied by $0.50, the 2009 federal rate. 4 It should be noted that while annualizing the capital costs over the same time frame (30 years) provides a consistent measurement across all packages, it does not take into account the varying life cycles of the different capital investments. For example, the life cycle of commuter - rail track, maintenance facilities, and stations will be longer than 30 years and therefore the average cost per user would be lower than the calculation provided. As calculated, the cost per user under the No Action alternative is the lowest at $4.47. The • highest cost per user is Package A at $5.26. The Preferred Alternative cost per user is $5.14. • The breakdown by mode indicates that the cost per user is highest for commuter rail and lowest for lanes on 1-25. This is a direct result of the larger number of users anticipated on 1-25 • compared to the rail and the 30-year life cycle assumption discussed above. When comparing estimated capital cost per mile and projected ridership to other recently constructed commuter rail systems across the county, the commuter rail line appears to be a reasonable expenditure • of public funds. While some specific mode costs are higher in the Preferred Alternative, overall the Preferred Alternative provides benefits that make it a reasonable public expenditure. Attributes that make the Preferred Alternative a good investment include its ability to better address regional safety, provide effective congestion reduction, provide multimodal options and better multimodal connectivity, and be responsive to goals of the land use plans in the northern Colorado communities. Overall, the Preferred Alternative meets the Purpose and Need better than the other alternatives. • Financial Analysis 6-9 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 6-12 Cost per User (2009 dollars) No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail N/A $43.50 N/A $72.37 Commuter Bus N/A $11.39 N/A $26.24 BRT N/A N/A $7.24 N/A Express Bus N/A N/A N/A $13.32 1-25 Lanes $0.04 $0.34 $0.49 $0.41 Total without Cost $0.04 $0.68 of Private Auto $0.54 $0.73 Private Auto O and M $4.43 $4.62 $4.58 $4.45 1-25 Lanes $4.47 $4.96 $5.07 $4.85 Total with Cost $q,47 of Private Auto $5.26 $5.08 $5.14 N/A=Not Applicable 1 6.6 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SHORTFALL The analysis of current funding conditions presented in this chapter identifies a significant 4 shortfall in funding for both construction and annual operating and maintenance costs for all build packages. Projected funding shortfalls are as follows: ► Known existing capital cost-related funding sources are estimated to cover only 23 percent • of Package A capital costs, 40 percent of Package B capital costs, and 32 percent of the Preferred Alternative costs. ► Transit farebox revenues are anticipated to cover only 22 percent of Package A annual transit O&M costs, 45 percent of Package B annual transit O&M costs, and 17 percent of the Preferred Alternative annual transit O&M costs. ► Toll revenues for Package B are anticipated to match additional highway-related annual O&M costs. Toll revenues for the Preferred Alternative have the potential to generate sufficient income to cover over 50 percent of additional highway-related annual O&M costs. - r Since there are insufficient funds available to construct Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative and because the project included in the final decision must be capable of being financed, the project in the Record of Decision will be a logical first phase of the Preferred Alternative. In this manner, the Preferred Alternative would be broken into a series of projects and phased with a series of Records of Decision, each of which would have a source of funding and could be constructed and utilized independently. 2 The availability of transportation funding is increasingly problematic for communities across 22 the country. New funding strategies for transportation are being discussed at the national, state, and local level. Traditional funding mechanisms no longer provide the level of funding required to maintain the existing transportation system or build new projects being planned to meet increasing demands. • Financial Analysis 6-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 State and federal transportation funding has been relatively stagnant over the last several 2 years, while construction costs have escalated substantially. The cost for construction 3 increased approximately 40 percent between 2002 and 2006 alone. Maintenance costs are 4 also increasing, taking a larger portion of the transportation dollar to preserve the existing 5 infrastructure. Traditional sources of transportation funding for highways have depended upon highway 7 trust funds established by Congress and the states to collect taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels. Nationally, it has been estimated by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) that the purchasing power of the gas tax is about one-third less than it was in the • 1960s. In Colorado, HUTF was worth only about 30 percent of its original value in 1992, the last time gas taxes were increased. In Colorado, the HUTF provides approximately 40 percent of state funds for highway improvements. General fund revenues were available from year to year to supplement transportation funding. Federal funds are apportioned to the state and some discretionary • funding from federal sources is obtained by CDOT for specific projects. In 2006, federal funds made up approximately 30 percent of the state's transportation budget. - Traditional sources of transit funding come from federal funding, regional sales taxes, and farebox revenues from patrons. Federal funds, including a mix of federal gas tax and general fund moneys, are provided to transit agencies on a formula basis for rolling stock and some operating expenses. These projects need to be cost effective; that is, with • ' relatively high ridership and relatively low costs. • . The information provided in this document reflects the funding sources presently available. Future revenue sources could come from both highway and transit programs and would need to be programmed through the normal DRCOG and NFRMPO planning processes. • Financial Analysis 6.11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES . _ .r A - 4- •� • fpore ,_� 4000 y - rti • r‘ • N ORTH 1-25 EIS information . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter summarizes the evaluation of alternatives and focuses on the advantages what's in Chapter 7? and disadvantages of the Preferred Chapter 7 Evaluation of Alternatives Alternative. The three build packages, 7.1 Evaluation Framework including specific modal and geographic 7.2 Responsiveness to Purpose and Need area components of each package, are 7.3 Environmental Consequences 7A Summary of Evaluation described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Information is provided in terms of their ability to meet the purpose and need criteria presented in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, key environmental and other impacts described in Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts (including both adverse impacts and benefits), as well as project costs, which are described in Chapter 6 Financial Analysis and Chapter 2 Alternatives. 7.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Factors used to evaluate the No-Action Alternative and build packages include: ► Responsiveness to purpose and need, including: • Effectiveness in improving mobility and accessibility • • Effectiveness in improving safety • Effectiveness at replacing aging highway infrastructure • Effectiveness at expanding transportation modes of travel ► Environmental consequences, both adverse impacts and benefits ► Costs (both capital and operating) 7.2 RESPONSIVENESS TO PURPOSE AND NEED This section discusses tradeoffs among the No-Action Alternative and the three build alternatives as they relate to the key factors used to measure responsiveness to Purpose and Need. These factors are defined in more detail in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need. 7.2.1 Effectiveness at Improving Mobility and Accessibility The No-Action Alternative would not meet the need of improving mobility or accessibility. When compared to the build packages, in 2035 it would have the most congestion on 1-25, the longest travel time, the slowest average speeds and the most vehicle hours of travel. The Preferred Alternative would have the highest average speed, the least regional vehicle hours of travel, the fastest highway travel time, the fastest bus transit time, the least miles of congestion on 1-25, and a lower number of ramp terminals predicted to operate at LOS E or F as compared to the No-Action Alternative. All of these factors are indicative of improvements • in mobility and accessibility. Evaluation of Alternatives 7-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The Preferred Alternative would result in more reliable, uncongested travel for users of the tolled express lanes over time. Anticipated travel time for the Preferred Alternative in the tolled express lanes (in 2035) would be 64 minutes, one minute faster than travel time for Package B and 38 minutes faster than Package A. This travel would be more reliable over time as well, compared to travelers using the general purpose lanes. 7.2.2 Effectiveness at Improving Safety All three build alternatives have been designed to be safe. All three build alternatives would reduce the frequency and severity of crashes on 1-25, when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Considering only 1-25 in 2035, Package B would result in fewer crashes (4,061 average per year) than the Preferred Alternative (4,399) and fewer average crashes per vehicle miles traveled (1.32) than the Preferred Alternative (1.37). However when considering the entire regional system, the Preferred Alternative has the greatest reduction of crashes because of the reduced daily VMT on arterials compared to Package A or Package B. This reduced VMT is a result of the higher capacity provided by the Preferred Alternative on 1-25 making 1-25 a more attractive route than the adjacent arterial network. The crash rate on arterials is higher than the crash rate on access controlled facilities such as 1-25. This results in improved safety under the Preferred Alternative for the entire regional transportation system because of the transfer of VMT to 1-25. Rail transit improvements would provide generally safer operations. National data show that passenger rail systems result in noticeably fewer annual injuries per 100 million passenger miles traveled than highway facilities. Commuter rail had an average of 18 annual injuries • over a four-year period (from 2002 to 2006) while highways resulted in an average of 59 injuries. Bus facilities have similar statistics to highways. Anticipated annual injuries in 2035 for the various transit components of the three Packages show: ► Package A (commuter rail, bus service) with eight annual injuries ► Package B (BRT)with 24 annual injuries ► Preferred Alternative (commuter rail and express bus)with 11 annual injuries 7.2.3 Effectiveness at Replacing Aging Highway Infrastructure Package B and the Preferred Alternative perform the best at replacing aging highway infrastructure because they include the most mileage of reconstruction along 1-25. 7.2.4 Effectiveness at Providing Modal Choices Package A would provide three different modes of travel (commuter rail, bus service, and general purpose lanes) on three different north/south corridors (US 287, 1-25, and US 85) while Package B would concentrate travel improvements primarily on 1-25 in two different modes (tolled express lanes and bus rapid transit). The Preferred Alternative would provide four different modes of travel (commuter rail, express or commuter bus, general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes) on three different north/south corridors (US 287, 1-25, and US 85). Bus or rail infrastructure improvements would be most responsive to the need to provide a • choice of transportation modes and would be consistent with the NFRMPO goals to provide a multi-modal transportation system. Bus or rail improvements would provide a viable alternative for those people who are dependent on transit because they do not own a private Evaluation of Alternatives 7-2 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. automobile or are elderly or disabled. Bus or rail improvements also can be more supportive of certain land use goals (related to inducement of transit oriented development) and goals related to reducing energy consumption. 7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Compared to the Build Packages, the No-Action Alternative would result in very little physical impact to existing social and environmental resources. Noise impacts related to increased traffic would also grow. The build packages would have greater impacts as a result of residential and business relocations, and greater impacts to natural resources, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, threatened or endangered species, historic resources, parks, and other resources. The build packages would provide increased transit ridership, enhanced mobility, and a positive influence on economic development in the regional study area. The Build Packages would have varying effects to environmental, social, and economic resources. The Preferred Alternative and Package A would have the most number of residential and business relocations, primarily because these two packages would include major improvements on three different corridors. The Preferred Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts to: ► Wetlands and jurisdictional open waters ► Parks and recreational properties • ► Sensitive wildlife habitat ► Aquatic habitat ► Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat ► Northern leopard frog and common garter snake habitat ► Sensitive fish species habitat The Preferred Alternative would also have the most impact to: ► Bald eagle foraging habitat ► Raptor nests The Preferred Alternative and Package A both have the most impact from transit noise (without mitigation) and the most number of vibration impacts (without mitigation). 7.4 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS In Package A, highway components account for over half the capital cost of the package, $1.097 billion, while commuter rail would cost about$848 million and commuter bus about $18.3 million. In Package B, highway components account for the majority of the capital cost of the package, about $1.589 billion, while BRT components would cost about $126 million. The Preferred Alternative highway components account for approximately $1.403 billion of capital • cost, over half of the capital cost. Commuter rail would account for$649 million and bus service would account for $126 million. However, highway components of the three packages would have a much lower cost per user than transit components, as operating and Evaluation of Alternatives 7.3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • maintenance costs are lower, and a far greater number of travelers use the highway. Annual operating and maintenance costs are greatest with the Preferred Alternative at $52 million, compared with $45 million with Package A and $23 million with Package B. The annualized cost per trip (without the cost to own and operate private auto) is greatest with the Preferred Alternative. When the cost to own and operate a private auto is included, Package A would cost the most. 7.5 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION Table 7-1 summarizes information about the relative responsiveness of the three alternatives to the factors used in this evaluation as shown in Section 7.1. Not all environmental factors are included, rather just those that show a clear difference among alternatives. Section 3.28 of this Final EIS includes a summary of all impacts. Table 7-1 indicates which of the build alternatives performs the best relative to a specific evaluation factor. If a build alternative has the least environmental impact or responds best to a measurement of purpose and need, it is flagged as best performing. For the factor of regional VMT, the build alternative with the lowest number is flagged as performing the best since higher VMT has greater impacts on regional air quality. The Federal Transit Administration has established a grant program called the New Starts (Section 5309) program. This program evaluates and rates candidate transit projects for FTA funding. FTA uses two major categories of rating a project: Project Justification and a Financial • Rating. The Project Justification criteria are: ► Mobility improvements ► Environmental benefits ► Cost effectiveness ► Transit-supportive existing land use, policies, and future patterns ► Other factors including economic development The Financial Rating includes the local financial commitment and an assessment of the capital and operating financial plan for the project. At this point in time, the North 1-25 project does not appear to be a candidate for New Starts funding, for the following reasons: ► Projected bus and rail daily ridership of 6,500 (2,700 for commuter rail, 3,400 for express bus and 400 for commuter bus) is relatively low. Assuming model updates increase ridership, projections could total as high as 10,850, but these are even low compared to corridors that typically receive New Starts funds. As a comparison, two FasTracks corridors that are receiving New Starts funding have the following estimated daily ridership: • West Corridor...29,700 • Eagle P3 57,500 ► Lack of local financial commitment and lack of a capital and operating financial plan for the • project. Other sources of FTA funding are available and will continue to be pursued. Evaluation of Alternatives 7-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation (2035) No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Alternative Improving Mobility and Accessibility Regional Vehicle Miles of 52.41 52.76 52.62 52.81 Travel (VMT) million million million ✓ million Regional Vehicle Hours of 1.72 1.70 1.69 1.68 Travel (VHT) million million million million ✓ Freeway VHT 363,000 364,000 360,000 ✓ 361,000 Daily Users (People)on I- 871,700 947,300 921,000 990,200 ✓ 25 Regional average speed 30.5 mph 31.1 mph 31.1 mph 31.4 mph ✓ Transit ridership N/A 5,850 6,800 ✓ 6,500 (commuter services) Transit market share <1% 55% 1 45% 50% (to downtown Denver) Highway travel time 133 minutes 117 minutes 117 minutes 107 minutes(GPL) ✓ (AM peak hour, SH 1 to (GPL) (GPL) (GPL) 64 minutes (TEL)✓ 20th Street) 116 minutes 102 minutes 65 minutes (TEL) (TEL) (TEL) Transit travel time 159 minutes 93 minutes 70 minutes 94 minutes (rail) (Fort Collins South Transit (FLEX from (rail) ✓ (BRT) 77 minutes (express III Center to DUS) Fort Collins to bus all-stop) Longmont; 63 minutes(express then NW Rail bus with express Corridor to service) ✓ DUS) Congested miles on 1-25 75 miles 44 miles 45 miles 17 miles ✓ (PM peak hour) Congested Miles on 1-25 56 miles 16 miles 30 miles 11 miles ✓ (AM peak hour) Interchange ramp 58 30 34 13 ✓ merge/diverge locations operating at LOS E or F (AM) Interchange ramp 69 34 52 26 ✓ merge/diverge locations operating at LOS E or F (PM) Travel reliability over time Least reliable Least reliable of More reliable Most reliable ✓ build alternatives than Package A Improving Highway Safety 3,975 4,238 4,061 4,399 (annual crashes) crashes crashes crashes ✓ crashes Crashes per VMT 1.41 1.33 1.32 ✓ 1.37 Transit Safety(annual N/A 8 ✓ 24 11 injuries) Overall system safety Least safe Improved over Improved over Safest✓ No-Action No-Action • Replacing Aging 64 minor 87 new structures 94 new 94 new structures ✓ Infrastructure rehabilitations structures ✓ Evaluation of Alternatives 7.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation (2035) (cont'd.) No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Alternative Improving Mobility and Accessibility Replacing Aging 64 minor 87 new structures 94 new 94 new structures ✓ Infrastructure rehabilitations structures V 4 15 modifications 24 24 modifications of major of existing modifications of existing structures ✓ rehabilitations structures existing structures ✓ 0 major 0 major 0 major rehabilitations rehabilitations V rehabilitations ✓ 22 minor 16 minor 16 minor rehabilitations ✓ rehabilitation rehabilitations Expansion of Does not Commuter rail, BRT and feeder Commuter Transportation Modes of expand commuter bus, bus added rail, express bus, Travel and feeder bus commuter bus, and added feeder bus added ✓ Responsiveness to Not Responsive to Responsive to Responsive to needs Economic Development responsive needs along 1-25 needs along along 1-25 and BNSF ✓ 1-25 and BNSF V Regional connectivity Least Connects Only connects Connects commuter responsive commuter rail and TELs rail, TELs, commuter • commuter bus bus and express bus Environmental Consequences Relocations None 59 residences 24 residences 51 residences 33 businesses 1 23 businesses 16 businesses Land use Not Somewhat Not responsive Most responsive to responsive to responsive to to community community goals ✓ community community goals goals goals Traffic noise sites impacted 661 sites 673 sites ✓ 685 sites 679 sites in Category B (without mitigation) Rail transit noise sites N/A 2,192 residences, None ✓ 2,192 residences, impacted 15 schools and 15 schools and (without mitigation) 7 churches 7 churches Rail transit vibration sites N/A 40 residences None V 40 residences impacted (without mitigation) Wetlands and jurisdictional None 21.9 acres 21.3 acres 18.2 acres ✓ open waters impacted Water Quality: acres of 1,257 acres 1,946 acres/ 2,001 acres 1,982 acres impervious surface area Floodplains impacted None 12.8 acres 1 13.5 acres 13.0 acres Historic and archaeological None 6 1 1 4 • properties adversely affected Evaluation of Alternatives 7-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation (2035) (cont'd.) No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Alternative Environmental Consequences(cont'd.) Parks and recreational None 8 6 ✓ 6 ✓ properties impacted Least harm to Section 4(f) Not prudent Most severe harm Similar Least overall harm to resources used and feasible. to significant remaining Section 4(f)properties, (not including de minimis) Section 4(f) harm to most responsiveness to properties. Section 4(f) project purpose and properties as need and likeliest to be the Preferred permitted under Section Alternative, 404(b)(1). ✓ but does not meet purpose and need as well. Wildlife and aquatic species habitat ► No. of raptor nests None 49 43 ✓ 57 ► No. of movement None 13 7 ✓ 14 corridors ► Sensitive wildlife habitat None 2.0 acres 2.4 acres 1.9 acres ✓ S (acres) ► Aquatic habitat(acres) None 1.8 acres 2.3 acres 1.5 acres ✓ Threatened,endangered, state sensitive& protected species habitat affected Preble's meadow None 0.8 acre 0.8 acre 0.7 acre V jumping mouse habitat ► Bald eagle foraging None 204 acres V 231 acres 231 acres ► Prairie dog colonies None 60 acres ✓ 97 acres 86 acres ► Northern leopard frog None 20 acres 21 acres 17 acres ✓ and common garter- snake ► Sensitive fish species None 0.4 acre ✓ 0.4 acre ✓ 0.4 acre V • Evaluation of Alternatives 7-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 7-1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation (2035) (cont'd.) No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Alternative Cost(2009 dollars) Capital cost $57 million $1.963 billion $1.715 billion $2.178 billion Annual operating cost $5.8 million $45 million $23 million I $52 million Annualized cost per user $0.04 $0.68 $0.54 I $0.73 per trip (without cost to own and operate a private auto) Annualized cost per user $4.47 $5.26 $5.09✓ $5.14 per trip (including cost to own and operate a private auto) ✓ Build alternative that performs better N/A ....Not Applicable • • Evaluation of Alternatives 7.8 iIMPLEMENTATION .. _ _ .., 0 PHASED PROJECT -• -�" or .•i NI S nit go ra•-leatf. " a S w w i7( evil a M as , t' Fby ty ��C„ S4 DIl • Ill - • N ORTH I-25 ,..,....... , EIS ill information . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 8 PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the three phases of What's in Chapter 8? the Preferred Alternative and documents that applicable environmental laws and Chapter 8-Phased Project Implementation requirements will be adhered to for each of 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Identification of Project Phases the project phases before and as they are 8.3 Detailed Discussion of Project Phases constructed. This phased approach is 8.4 Implementation of Future Project necessary because the identified Phases transportation improvements are estimated 8.5 Mitigation to cost more to implement than the funding that is currently identified in the relevant fiscally-constrained regional transportation plans. The Preferred Alternative (see Figure 8-1) is expected to cost approximately $2.18 billion (in 2009 dollars). There are currently limited existing funding sources available to fund construction of North 1-25 corridor transportation improvements. These funding sources are summarized in Section 6.1.5 Current Allocated Funding. The North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (NFRMPO 2007) identifies $357 million in funding for improvements to the 1-25 corridor. The Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (UFRRPC, 2008) includes $6 million (the Upper Front Range Region includes a portion of • US 85). The Denver Regional Council of Governments Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP (DRCOG, 2011) identifies $268 million in funding for improvements along 1-25 and $58 million for the I-25/SH 7 interchange. These fiscally-constrained regional transportation plans identify $688 million for improvements creating an approximately $1.5 billion funding shortfall. Further discussion on these three transportation planning regions and their boundaries is included in Section 1.6 Relationship to the Transportation Planning Process. Metropolitan Planning Regulation (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 450.322) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.104) work together to require that a project located in a Metropolitan Planning Area and/or in a CAA nonattainment or maintenance area, be contained in a conforming, fiscally-constrained long-range regional transportation plan. Through a phased Record of Decision (ROD), FHWA can approve project improvements that are included in conforming, fiscally-constrained regional transportation plans. After this Final EIS has been made available to the public and the review period concludes, FHWA and CDOT will identify an initial phase for the ROD. Phase 1, as identified in this chapter, is proposed as Phase 1 for the ROD. Consideration of the Final EIS and the first ROD will be part of future implementation of projects. Improvements included in Phase 2 and Phase 3 can be re-evaluated, as necessary, based on future safety needs, funding availability, and transportation needs and identified in subsequent RODs as additional funding becomes available. Phases 2 and 3 do not necessarily need to be selected in their entirety or in order in subsequent RODs. This will be determined at the time of a subsequent ROD, considering available funding, priorities at that time, and the results of any reevaluation that may be • needed. Phased Project Implementation 8-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 8-1 Preferred Alternative 25 LEGEND Reconstruct mainline Tolled Express Lanes Express Bus Transit Station w.illn, • to correct geometric. General Purpose Lanes ' Commuter Bus Transit Station El deficienciesandreplace aging nnmmi Express Bus n Commuter Rail Transit Station z ' s •moin., infrastructure Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots 4 CR1 • Commuter Rail in Commuter Rail Operational ♦ t� mat & Maintenance Facility • 6/2 Passing Track Fort • Commuter Bus Operational Coil gi 4 rowel 85 Feeder Bus Service & Maintenance Facility • CR t• „ii„ e Q Interchange Reconstruction :-�- FasTracks Rail Line : i• nwa' © ti r•w••• e• aeeon .'w. Number of Lanes C FasTracks / RTD Transit Station • 64 0� Lucerne Vif►� General Purpose/ :� Tolled Express Windsor Lov ' 1 nd ...u?oadsBhti E7 EBB IN B1 CR4 • E! % 6/2 E: ; • ,i 34 ♦- u s.. CR • Greele + CB TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS �� I CD Evan .Garden City ■ Commuter Rail Express Bus LA RIMER I M E R ! I. ♦ h,,st CB3 C © obn•toww La Sall* CR1 1 '4:::.',,, E B 1 South Fort Collins Transit ♦- 60 Transit Center - BNSF .l'' Center - US 287 and Maple St. I Harmony Rd. f �;, Q ♦•ER9 Milliken CR2 CSU • BNSF between EB2 Timberline - Harmony Rd. titG,ere University Ave. and W. _ and Timberline St EB3 East Fort Collins - 1.25 and —— — CR South Fort Collins Tram a Harmony Rd. 6�2 Center - US 287 and E84 Windsor - 1-25 and SH 392 36 = R 34 WELD Harmony Rd. M. ♦ rlattwnl CR4 Loveland BNSF : , EBb Crossroads - Loveland A St between Crossroads Blvd.CR7• • 66 . s • C640 and US 34 Longmont CRS town Loveland EBB West Greeley - US 34 and t and approximately SH 257 • �. --.l19,• ♦FB1n EB7 Greeley US 34 and 83rd 366, ,; CR6 cud BNSF and Ave. BOULDERI as 'L' ' e rlreston• CR7 ' '; i Longmont - BNSF E68 Greeley Downtown Transfer e7< I - rick and SH 66 Center - 8th Ave. and •»t f : 8th St. * ® " . E;' • C85 CR8 LongmonRltigers Sugar Mill, EB9 Berthoud - I-25 and SH 56 • = 812 sz south of 0�• ort EB 1 o Firestone - I-25 and ° a s - ono pton CR9 Ene 1.25 and CR 8 $H 119 Elul CR' - 6/2 O FasTracks Rail Stations;„ EB11 FredenddDacono - l-25 �,s, : oulder I 1.176 and SH 52 EB 12 Erie - 1-25 and CR 8 t' H :13 �CommuterBus EB1 Broomfield 1.25 and SH 7 art ow CB1 oDIA t ' $ _CB2 Soleseeley 8thAve. a t 711 Right-of-Way 24thSt. Rail Corrido •wcawPreservation • • • M_ CB3 Evans - US 85 and 42nd 4 - _ - • • cam ,e," CB4 Platteville - US 85 and 'a' - L • r.."Ave / 72 t1tiP• E47t * O•nver • North Metro Iowt•rnatronal CB5 Fort Lupton - US 85 and Airport CR 14.5 6/2 CorridorD Brighton • US 85 and SH 7 • Ill - —I '121, EL — •• nuuu• w� Commerce City - 72nd and DiLti' I - , r - - - 76 1 AlaJEFFERS " • 70 7 1 Jill! rots M . V0 �1 IllIli ' 70 �a--�� MNes North / s I.v: 25 ' en @r _ • Phased Project Implementation 8-2 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The identification of a Preferred Alternative for the entire project in this Final EIS is consistent with FHWA's objective of analyzing and identifying transportation solutions on a broad enough scale to provide meaningful analysis and to avoid segmentation. The identification of an initial phase for implementation is consistent with FHWA requirements to have funding for projects identified before final decisions are made. As funds become available, it is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to work toward implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety through this phased approach. 8.2 IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT PHASES To accommodate funding limitations, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into three phases. This section describes: ► the process used to prioritize projects ► the reasoning behind the prioritization of improvements to be included in Phase 1 Section 8.3 Implementation of Future Project Phases describes the process that will be used to implement future phases as additional funding becomes available. 8.2.1 Decision Making Process The need for developing a phasing plan is because there is currently a short fall of funds and CDOT is unable to build the entire Preferred Alternative at once. Phasing for Package A and • Package B could also be developed in a similar manner and, given that all three build alternatives could be phased, identification of the Preferred Alternative was not based on phasing considerations. To develop the phasing plan, the first discussion with the stakeholders described the funding limitations in detail, and also described the implications of phasing. The first phase needs to identify a subset of components that amount in cost equal to the identified project funds in the fiscally-constrained, conforming long range plans (2035). It was also clarified that staging of components in subsequent phases could be re-evaluated as funding and needs change over time regardless of the phase that the improvements have been included. Given this information, the stakeholders were first tasked with identifying phasing criteria. The stakeholders developed the phasing criteria by referring to the defined elements of purpose and need, as well as their community and agency values. In addition, CDOT provided guidance regarding the need for a cohesive system for each major phase. A collaborative decision making process ensued with the stakeholders over a series of meetings. In the end, consensus was achieved on a recommended three phase implementation plan. More detail describing the development of the phasing plan is provided below and in Appendix B. 8.2.2 Project Prioritization Process CDOT and FHWA established a prioritization based on comments received on the Draft EIS and input from the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) (described in Chapter 9 Public and Agency Involvement). The RCC/TAC provided input into the development of the Preferred Alternative phasing by providing guidance • on the communities' priorities for allocating the limited resources available to the project. The RCC/TAC provided a prioritized list of factors that were important to their communities when developing a phasing plan for the Preferred Alternative. These included: Phased Project Implementation 8.3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1) Preservation of Infrastructure 2) Address Safety Concerns 3) Improve Mobility 4) Coordinate with Community Plans 5) Consider Long-Term with Near-Term Implementation 6) Implement Cost Effective Solution The first three are consistent with the project's Purpose and Need (described in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need). The project's Purpose and Need statement identifies a need to replace aging infrastructure on 1-25, address safety concerns on I-25, improve mobility and provide modal options. The last three reflect the communities' desire to ensure consistency with their current plans and consideration of commuter rail in the Preferred Alternative. Following identification of the phasing plan priorities, the RCC/TAC prioritized projects as near-, mid- or long-term improvements. Key results of this exercise were: ► Bus services included in the Preferred Alternative (express bus on 1-25 and commuter bus on US 85) had substantial support for inclusion as a near-term project due to the lack of immediate funding availability for commuter rail and the expected timeframe for implementation of RTD's North Metro and Northwest Rail Lines. ► Commuter rail projects included in the Preferred Alternative were rated as long-term • improvements due to the lack of immediate funding availability. ► 1-25 widening and reconstruction of the interchanges north of SH 66 were the most strongly supported near-term improvements due to a desire to address critical safety, mobility, and aging infrastructure problems in this part of the corridor. ► Widening 1-25 south of SH 66 was divided between mid- and long-term. Consequently, the following guiding principles for identification of the Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative were developed: ► Address concerns on 1-25 north of SH 66 —This principle is consistent with the project's Purpose and Need and the committees' strong desire to address safety, capacity and infrastructure issues on this stretch of 1-25. ► Include bus transit— This is consistent with the project's Purpose and Need to increase modal options, and the committee's desire to see bus service implemented in the near- term. ► Include a commitment to commuter rail —This is also consistent with the projects' Purpose and Need to increase modal options, and the committee's desire to ensure that near-term solutions are considering the long-term vision. • Phased Project Implementation 8-4 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 8.2.3 Prioritization of Improvements for Phase 1 Based on the guiding principles indentified above, the following Phase 1 improvements have been identified in coordination with the RCC/TAC: 1) Widen 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 66 with one tolled express lane in each direction. This would: • Replace seven miles of pavement with no remaining service life • Reconstruct two substandard interchanges (I-25/SH 56 and 1-25/CR 34) • Address geometric safety concerns • Improve mobility by increasing capacity • Increase modal options by providing a lane for carpools and bus service • Address the committees' desire to improve safety and mobility north of SH 66 in the near-term 2) Widen 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 392 with continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes that would ultimately become part of the eight-lane cross-section. This would: • Replace seven miles of pavement with no remaining service life • • Reconstruct two substandard interchanges (I-25/SH 14 and I-25/Prospect) • Address geometric safety concerns • Improve mobility by increasing capacity • Address the committees' desire to improve safety and mobility north of SH 66 in the near-term 3) Construct an interchange at US 34/Centerra Parkway (LCR 5), which is part of the Preferred Alternative configuration for the I-25/US 34 interchange. This would: • Improve accessibility and mobility by improving interchange operation 4) Widen 1-25 between 120th Avenue and approximately US 36 with one buffer-separated tolled express lane in each direction. This would: • Address geometric safety concerns along 1-25 • Improve mobility by increasing capacity • Increase modal options by providing a lane for carpools and bus service 5) Interchange reconstruction at I-25/SH 7, which would be constructed to its ultimate configurations. This would: • Improve accessibility and mobility by improving interchange operation • Phased Project Implementation 8-5 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 6) Commuter rail right-of-way preservation —All right-of-way necessary to construct the ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1, which would address the committees' desire to consider the long-term vision in the near term. It is important to note that the purchase of right-of-way for commuter rail is not eligible for federal aid funding until construction funds for commuter rail have been identified in a fiscally-constrained regional transportation plan. 7) 1-25 express bus service — Express bus service connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA) would be initiated. Four transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1. This would: • Increase modal options by providing bus service • Address the committees' desire to see bus service implemented in the near-term 8) US 85 commuter bus service — Commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver would be implemented in Phase 1. This would: • Increase modal options by providing bus service • Address committees' desire to see bus service implemented in the near-term Phase 1 would cost approximately $670 million (2009 dollars) and is planned to be completed by 2035. A Cost Estimate Review (CER) was conducted on the Preferred Alternative by CDOT with guidance from FHWA. The results of the CER are described in more detail in Chapter 6 Financial Analysis and in the North 1-25 Project Cost Estimate Review Report (FHWA and • CDOT, 2010). The CER included construction of the interchange at US 34/Centerra Parkway (LCR 5), in the Preferred Alternative configuration for the I-25/US 34 interchange, but did not include it in Phase 1 as it was added to Phase 1 after the CER was completed. The CER will need to be updated during preparation of the project financial plans. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 improvements are described in Section 8.4 Detailed Discussion of Project Phases. The CAA requires air quality conformity to be demonstrated for major transportation projects in non-attainment areas. Regional air quality conformity for Phase 1 is demonstrated in its inclusion in the fiscally-constrained North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, the Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the DRCOG 2035 RTP. The regional emissions analysis conducted for the Preferred Alternative is discussed in Section 3.5 Air Quality. The fiscally-constrained regional transportation plan and transportation improvement program must identify all projects that are expected to receive federal funds or that will require FHWA or FTA approval. 8.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF FUTURE PROJECT PHASES Total funding for the Preferred Alternative (Phases 2 and 3) has not been identified at this time. Phases 2 and 3 of the Preferred Alternative are not included in a fiscally-constrained regional transportation plan. As additional funding becomes available, subsequent phases will be included in the relevant fiscally-constrained regional transportation plans for the purpose of air quality conformity. Projects identified in Phases 2 and 3 could be implemented sooner if • funding is identified earlier. It must be noted that these are current priorities. Priorities may Phased Project Implementation 8-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. change, especially with regard to how phases may fit with future funding amounts. In addition, actions to improve safety (for example, bridge replacement) could occur separately from this effort and will be funded at that time by safety funds and/or other funding sources. To provide more information and opportunity for public comment, as well as to satisfy the requirements for fiscal constraint, FHWA and CDOT have developed a process to be used for this project to support phased implementation. This approach, which is illustrated in Figure 8-2, allows for disclosure and discussion of project phasing during the NEPA process. With this process, the analysis of alternatives and identification of a Preferred Alternative is fully consistent with the typical NEPA process for transportation projects. However, in this approach additional detail is provided regarding phasing, as an enhancement to the typical NEPA process because only what is included in the fiscally constrained plan can be approved in the ROD due to Clean Air Act requirements. Each additional phase of the project will have to be in the 20-year fiscally constrained regional transportation plan as additional project phases are funded, with at least a portion placed in the STIP. This process, including preparation of a ROD as funds become available, will be repeated until the entire Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS is completed as noted previously. Phases 2 and 3 do not necessarily need to be selected in their entirety or in order for subsequent RODs. Project development will be subject to the state and MPO planning process. Subsequent RODs will consider available funding, priorities at the time, and the results of any reevaluation that may needed. Key points in the process at which CDOT seeks concurrence from FHWA are indicated on Figure 8-2. The first phased ROD will be consistent with the projects identified in the fiscally-constrained • North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, the Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, and the DRCOG 2035 RTP. Projects required to implement the Preferred Alternative not included in the first phased ROD are anticipated to be identified in future RODs, which would be prepared as funding is identified. These projects would be designed to minimize interim pieces and to build to the ultimate configuration. The following general considerations will be taken into account when determining the scope of future RODs: CDOT will consider equity issues in the corridor and will be cognizant of the need to balance the construction of improvements throughout the corridor. If funding becomes available to local agencies, such as earmarks or private funds, projects may be identified for inclusion in future RODs. • Phased Project Implementation 8-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 0 Figure 8-2 Phased Implementation Process Additional Steps for Typical NEPA Process Phased Implementation DEIS Disclose need and intent • Build Alternatives ,_map. to Implement project in • No•ActionAlternative two or more phases •Discuss need and intent to phase PUBLIC HEARING the project COMMENT PERIOD •Receive comments on project alternatives and phasing priorities If /t /dditional\ Establish Logical Phase Packages' %Analysis or Data cYESlk • Independent Utility/Logical Termini llection Needed • Elements of Purpose and Need Based on • Environmental Impacts Comments • Mitigation paired with Impacts Additional • Fiscal Impacts and Constraints Data Cdlectfon - - N 0 an Analysis .1r r Prioritize Phase Packages: * • Priority of Needs Concurrence • Logical Sequencing on Phases and Establish Preferred Alternative •Available Funding Priorities Using Criteria Including. •Ability to Meet Purpose and Need • Feasibility -i` • Affordability Concurrence • Social. Economic.Environmental Concerns on Preferred % ; Additional • • LEDPA(per section 404 of CWA) Alternative ,Engineering Design YES • Environmentally Preferred Alt. (per CEO) \ and/or Environmental •Section 4(f)Avoidance Analysis Needed • Public Acceptance \\for Phases Design: • Loop Term Vision . / `�`i • TransitionsII 0 • Interim Elements I la I. Environmental: NC) • Increased Impacts II •Air Duality Conformity -- —iiimpic_I. Document Preferred Alternative and Phasing: ;; • Overall Preferred Alternative -i• 0 • Phase Packages and Priorities Concurrence on ALA • Independent Utility of Phases Methodology, ;, • Intent to Implement AI Phases Depth of t L . • Consistency with Purpose and Need Analysis.and • Mitigation paired with Impacts Presentation • AO Conformity tot Preferred and Phase I FEIS -r • Fiscal Impact of Phased Implementation 4 PUBLIC HEARING ROD (Phase t) COMMENT PERIOD ♦selecledAtternative-Prase I Design •Intent to Implement Additional Phase(s) Construction when Funding becomes Available -.• :. II IiiI, �._ 11 Additional Funding Availahn 11 10 ir RTP Amendment: la II ♦ Air°witty conformity II II 64 ROD(Phase 2) *identify Phase Previously Implemented ROD *Selected Alternative • Phase 2 Design •Re-evaluation(if needed) Construction •Public Involvement of needed) =:- Illid •Intent to Implement Additional Phase(s) Legend when Funding becomes Available - CDOT and FHWA Discussion and Concurrence Points Y10 AS NEEDED TO COMPLETE Phased Project Implementation 8-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. When additional state and/or federal funds become available, FHWA and CDOT will identify projects to include in future RODs based on the following priorities. The first priority will be given to replace aging infrastructure and/or addressing safety issues. The replacement of aging infrastructure will be given priority when the infrastructure deteriorates to such an extent its conditions affect operations of the corridor or safety of the traveling public. Projects arising from safety considerations may be given priority when safety data indicate higher than average crash rates at a particular location or when a substandard area or pinch point has been identified which adversely impacts the public. After addressing critical aging infrastructure and safety needs, improvements will be prioritized using the Purpose and Need and stakeholder input. In determining the scope of future phased RODs, stakeholder input will be considered via the standard state and MPO planning processes. Additionally, as a project is advanced through the design process, input would be sought from those local agencies affected as is typical in CDOT project development. Once funding has been identified for additional projects, there will be a re-evaluation of changes in the context, affected areas, impacts, and mitigation. Future RODs that are anticipated to be prepared would identify impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that are associated with those actions, including air quality conformity for the portion of the Preferred Alternative approved in the ROD. 8.4 DETAILED DISCUSSION OF PROJECT PHASES This section describes Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the Preferred Alternative. Phase 1 has been • described in more detail than Phases 2 and 3 because it is expected to be included in the fiscally-constrained and conforming long-range plans prior to the ROD. Independent utility has been established for the infrastructure investment of Phase 1. The detailed analysis for Phase 1 includes traffic analysis results and a list of mitigation measures for impacts caused by Phase 1. Less detailed analysis was undertaken for Phases 2 and 3 because elements from these phases are not included in the fiscally constrained conforming plans. When elements from Phases 2 and 3 are ready to be implemented in the future when funding is identified, and elements are included in the fiscally-constrained conforming plans, CDOT anticipates completing a reevaluation of the elements for consideration in future RODs. These future RODs would include any additional analysis and mitigation for impacts of these elements. Because of the NEPA/404 merger process and potential resulting permit, wetland mitigation will be completed for the entire Preferred Alternative in advance of Phase 1 implementation. Based on past revenue projections, the three phases of the Preferred Alternative are currently projected for completion in years 2035, 2055, and 2075, respectively. As described above, Phases 2 and 3 do not necessarily need to be selected in their entirety or in the specified order in subsequent RODs. This will be determined through the planning process and available funds. • Phased Project Implementation 8.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • 8.4.1 Phase 1 List of Elements and Estimated Cost The effort described above resulted in development of the Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 8-3). As shown, Phase 1 includes the following elements. ► Widening 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 392 (approximately seven miles). This improvement would include full reconstruction of the existing cross section plus pavement to accommodate the Preferred Alternative TELs. While the additional pavement would ultimately be used for TELs, as an interim improvement it will be used as continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes. This would avoid potential operational problems associated with a southbound lane drop at SH 392. Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features necessary to accommodate this improvement. Right-of- way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross-section is also included. ► Widening 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 66 (approximately seven miles) with one tolled express lane in each direction. Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features as well as the right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross-section. ► Widening 1-25 between approximately US 36 and 120th Avenue (approximately six miles) with one buffer-separated tolled express lane in each direction and interchange modifications, as necessary. Widening would include noise and sound walls, water quality • ponds, and median barrier features as well as the right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross-section. ► Replacement and reconstruction of interchanges— I-25/SH 14, I-25/Prospect, 1-25/SH 56, I-25/CR 34, and I-25/SH 7 would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. SH 392 and 84th Avenue would be completed as part of separate projects. A first phase of improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange would be completed, which includes a single point urban interchange (SPUI) at the US 34/Centerra Parkway intersection. ► Replace or construct forty-six structures, modify two existing structures, and rehabilitate (minor) two structures (see Table 8-1). ► Installation of six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges (I-25/SH 14, I-25/Prospect Road, I-25/Harmony Road, I-25/SH 56/WCR 44, Firestone, and I-25/SH 7). Several of these carpool lots are shared with the 1-25 express bus transit stations. ► Preservation of commuter rail right-of-way—All right-of-way necessary to construct the ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1. ► 1-25 express bus— Regional express bus service connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA would be initiated. Four transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1 (I-25/Harmony Road, US 34/SH 257, Firestone, and I-25/SH 7), and 27 buses would be purchased. ► US 85 commuter bus— Commuter bus along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver would be implemented in Phase 1. This would include construction of five stations and the purchase of five buses. The entire US 85 commuter bus system identified in the • Preferred Alternative would be implemented in Phase 1. Phased Project Implementation 8.10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 8-3 Preferred Alternative Phasing — Phase 1 JIs Wellington 85 (IN 25 Mountain Vista 287 ♦ 14 Milt INN me Fort r lin �:ogp�t No Phase 1 1 •= Eaton Station Construction Harmony as• nalh - Severance No Phase 1 (On-Street Stop Only) _ s�, Lucerne J Construction LEGEND Windsor (On-Street 34 C odlsroads Stop Only) C Commuter Bus & Stations LOV : I Ind nnlilOiinun Initial 1-25 Express Bus & Stations ♦ 34 Greeley n Commuter Rail ROW Preservation I 402 Garden City uuuuuu Continuous Accel/Decel Lanes a CR 16 57 Evan- Tolled Express Lanes 60 I CR 50 La SalleL LA RIMER r M E R C Johnstown . Q Interchange Reconstruction II I so NFR Separate Action Interchange �/l 56 Silolken Upgrade(No-Action Alternative) ' . d • r• Phase 1: FasTracks Rail Line Construction of c FasTracks/RTD Transit Station interchange at US 34 / • Existing Interchange 36 I - R34 WELD Centerra Parkway 1 Platt•vill 86 Longmont 36iron2. 85 BOULDER Firestone 119 287 crick Iwot TT I •-i 52 !i e ' 52Fort + • s W s wne. WCF 8 Daeono upon •y •T• • • Erie ••• 'kilo , oulder - I .a �• • 0 a 1 •93 : •36 L•uIsW1 i • - Sri on " "� -� 1UMhve • . • Northwest Rail Corridor ot•perl' Broomfield :.�. • T nton C - . e . 4. • Com • l/ _ 1 • /.72 , • t . sari AN,ort n North Metro E47o Denver ti • Inter national Ba Owe Corridor Alrpart • • •ill -S r • 2 • 4 m n•m nt •f ,_ • - m „„mii • •C•G's •T• / _ _ JEFFER ' ON 7s � l • �� • . , l wn 0 2 '6 __�MNes North 8 •tfi • ve Den er I \ 25 Ill Phased Project Implementation 8-11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 8-1 Phase 1 — Structures Replacement or Reconstruction Modification Rehabilitation ► 1-25 over Niver ► 1-25 SB over SH 56 ► Wagon Road HOV ► Community Center Creek (CBC) ► US 34 WB By-Pass Ramp Drive over 1-25 RTD Pedestrian over LCR 5 ► 1-25 over Preble ► Wagon Road HOV Overpass ► US 34 over LCR 5 Creek(CBC) Ramp s 88th Avenue over ► US 34 EB By-Pass 1-25 over LCR 5 ► Pedestrian ► 1-25 over Cache la Overpass Poudre Floodway (CBC) ► 1-25 over Farmers ► 1-25 SB on Ramp Highline Canal over Cache Ia ► Pedestrian Poudre Floodway Underpass (CBC) (CBC) ► 1-25 over S. Fork ► LCR 36(Kechter Preble Creek(CBC) Road)over 1-25 ► Bull Canal (CBC) ► LCR 36 over Cache ► SH 7 over 1-25 Ia Poudre Floodway ► 1-25 NB over (CBC) WCR 32 ► Kechter Rd over ► 1-25 SB over Cache la Poudre WCR 32 Floodway(CBC) ► WCR 34 over 1-25 ► 1-25 over Cache la • ► 1-25 over North Poudre Floodway (CBC) Creek (CBC) ► 1-25 NB over GWRR ► Harmony Road over I-25 ► 1-25 SB over GWRR ► 1-25 NB over Cache ► 1-25 over Drainage la Poudre River (CBC) ► 1-25 SB over Cache ► WCR 38 over 1-25 la Poudre River ► 1-25 NB over Valley ► 1-25 NB over GWRR Road ► 1-25 SB over GWRR ► 1-25 SB over Valley ► Prospect Road over Road 1-25 ► 1-25 over Draw ► Lake Canal (CBC) (CBC) Timnath Ditch ► 1-25 NB over Little ► (Cache la Thompson River Reservoir Poudre Inlet) ► 1-25 SB over Little (CBC) Thompson River ► Box Elder Creek ► 1-25 NB over SH 56 (CBC) ► SH 14 over 1-25 ► SH 14 over Frontage Road Connector ► 1-25 NB over GWRR • ► 1-25 SB over GWRR Phased Project Implementation 8.12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Some elements of Phase 1 are in an interim location and will need to be reconstructed as future phases are completed, which would result in irretrievable losses of labor, funding, energy, and materials. These interim pieces of Phase 1 have been minimized where possible. The decision to proceed in phases was made due to existing funding limitations. The decisions of what elements to include in Phase 1 were based on funding constraints, the project Purpose and Need, and concerns of the local jurisdictions. The elements of Phase 1, including the tolled express lanes, continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes, and interchange improvements, are anticipated to provide a substantial benefit to corridor users and would offset the irreversible impacts. Table 8-2 summarizes the estimated cost by Phase 1 element. Table 8-2 Phase 1 - Estimated Cost by Element Element Estimated Cost(2009 dollars) Widen 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 56 $119.7 million Widen 1-25 between SH 392 and SH 14, including Prospect interchange $133.3 million Widen 1-25 between approximately US 36 and 120th Avenue $138.3 million Replace and reconstruct interchanges—I-25/SH 14, $157.1 million 1-25/SH 56, and I-25/SH 7 Install six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges $2.3 million • Preserve commuter rail right-of-way $26.4 million Initiate 1-25 express bus and US 85 commuter bus $63.1 million Construct intersection at US 34/Centerra Parkway(LCR 5) $29.7 million Total $669.9 million Purpose and Need The project Purpose and Need, as described in Chapter 1, would be addressed by implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety. Phases 1, 2 and 3 individually would not fully address the Purpose and Need, but each phase would contribute by incrementally addressing elements of the Purpose and Need. The Purpose and Need would be fully addressed once all phases have been implemented. Phase 1 would incrementally contribute to addressing elements of the project Purpose and Need as follows. ► Need#1: Reduce crashes on portions of 1-25 that have worse than average safety performance. • Widening 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 66 would correct existing substandard shoulders and stopping sight distance to provide continuous, safe refuge for stopped vehicles and emergency use and would correct deficiencies in the horizontal alignment. • • Widening 1-25 between SH 392 and SH 14 would correct deficiencies in the horizontal alignment between SH 392 and Harmony Road. Phased Project Implementation 8-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Need#2: Improve mobility and accessibility along the 1-25 corridor. • Reconstructing the I-25/SH 7 interchange would replace an interchange that does not have the capacity to safely or efficiently accommodate the higher traffic volumes anticipated by 2035. • Reconstructing the I-25/SH 14, I-25/Prospect, I-25/SH 56, and I-25/CR 34 interchanges would improve capacity and therefore enhance accessibility at these locations. • Widening 1-25 between SH 66 and SH 56, SH 392 and SH 14, and 120th Avenue and approximately US 36 would improve mobility along the 1-25 corridor. ► Need#3: Replace aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure. • Reconstructing the 1-25/SH 14, I-25/Prospect, 1-25/SH 56, and I-25/CR 34 interchanges would replace structures that were constructed prior to 1966. ► Need#4: Provide modal alternatives. • Constructing six carpool lots at 1-25 interchanges, preserving right-of-way for the commuter rail, initiating express bus service along 1-25 and implementing commuter bus service along US 85 would provide modal alternatives. These improvements are considered a reasonable expenditure of funds and would incrementally contribute to addressing the Purpose and Need of the project, even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. The improvements proposed in • Phase 1 would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. The transportation improvements to be constructed in Phase 1 would have independent utility in that they would provide transportation benefits, be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional improvements are made in the area, and each element connects logical termini. Because this EIS addressed the regional transportation needs, the study considered environmental matters on a broad scope. The purchase/preservation of right-of-way for commuter rail, which is included in Phase 1, would not have independent utility because the commuter rail system would not be constructed until future funds are identified. State funds will be used for the purchase of commuter rail right-of-way in Phase 1, and this right-of-way preservation identified in Phase 1 will not be included in the ROD because it is not eligible for federal funds until the commuter rail project is included in the fiscally-constrained conforming plan. State expenditures for this purpose may become eligible for use as a credit towards the state's share of a federal aid project in the future at the time of commuter rail implementation, in accordance with applicable federal regulations [23CFR710.501(b); 23CFR630.112(c)(1)]. Traffic Analysis A traffic analysis for Phase 1 for the year 2035 was completed. The 2035 traffic analysis evaluates traffic conditions at the completion of Phase 1 in 2035, since all of Phase 1 is not expected to be constructed until 2035. For the 2035 traffic analysis, it was assumed that all Phase 1 improvements would have been implemented. • Phased Project Implementation 8-14 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Figure 8-4 presents the level of service (LOS) for each segment of 1-25 during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours for Phase 1. In the No-Action Alternative most of the corridor operated with LOS E and F conditions. Under Phase 1, travel demand forecasts are similar to the No-Action Alternative, but 1-25 capacity would only be enhanced in a few locations which results in LOS E and F conditions in much of the corridor. For the Phase 1 analysis, a total of 25 freeway segments were analyzed. Forecasted volumes result in 15 segments in one or both directions operating at LOS E or F in the AM peak hour and 17 segments in the PM peak hour. Table 8-3 equates these congested segments to miles of 1-25 operating with congested conditions and compares Phase 1 miles of congestion to miles of congestion for the No-Action Alternative. As shown in the table, Phase 1 capacity enhancements provide some reduction in miles operating at LOS E or F for segments north of E-470. Improved operations occur from SH 14 to SH 392 where continuous auxiliary lanes would be implemented and between SH 56 and SH 66 where a toll lane and improved geometric conditions would provide some additional capacity. Table 8-3 Miles of I-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Component No-Action Phase 1 No-Action Phase 1 SH1toSH14 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 22 17 29 20 SH 60 to E-470 17 10 24 21 • E-470 to US 36 17 15 22 22 Total 56 42 75 63 Travel Time Table 8-4 illustrates travel time anticipated for users in the general purpose lanes and for users of the tolled express lanes (where available) with the completion of Phase 1. As shown, travel in the general purpose lanes would be improved by eight minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street in the AM peak hour southbound. Travel in the tolled express lanes would improve from 116 minutes to 107 minutes over that same section of 1-25. Table 8-4 2035 Phase 1 Travel Time Travel Time in Minutes No Action Phase 1 General Purpose Lanes SH 1 to E-470 69 69 _ E-470 to 20th Street 64 56 Total 133 125 TEL Lanes where available SH 1 to E-470 69 69 E-470 to 20th Street 47 38 Total 116 107 • Phased Project Implementation 8.15 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 8-4 Phase 1 - I-25 Mainline Level of Service (LOS) PHASE 1 PHASE 1 (Tolled Express Lanes) SH 1 CR 34 CR 34 4- A A D B B B A A C 7 B C Mountain Vista SH 66 SH 66 B B C C B B C D SH 14 SH 119 WEAVE C C D C D D C D Prospect SH 52 C C C D C J D Harmony CR 8 C C [A D C s C .. D SH392 SH7 WEAVE D A Crossroads E•470 IP ✓ P rig r5 US 34 144th Ave. - P lt' U" ✓ P [ SH 402 136th Ave. r D (Tolled Express Lanes) C [ ll CR 16 120th Ave. 120th Ave. - (IP fig D B B [' [' (Tolled Express Lanes) i , - C D SH 60 SH 60 - IL- 104th Ave. 104th Ave. , D B B .' D BB D i B C C D Thornton Thornton SH 56 - SH 56 Parkway Parkway D C 1B F D B B C "7 B C F' .F C D 84th Ave. 84th Ave. LEGEND 3' C B B NORTHBOUND _r' . _3 C D AM X Y AM II A, B, C, D PM X Y PM LOS E, F SOUTHBOUNDIII Phased Project Implementation 8-16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Transit Ridership Table 8-5 summarizes the anticipated regional transit ridership with the completion of Phase 1. As shown, the initial 1-25 bus service is expected to attract 2,000 boardings daily. The US 85 commuter bus would attract an additional 200 riders daily. These numbers represent about one third of the regional transit ridership anticipated with the Preferred Alternative. Table 8-5 2035 Phase 1 Weekday Transit Ridership Phase 1 Daily Riders US 85 Commuter Bus to/from Downtown Denver 200 Initial 1-25 Express Bus: North Front Range to/from 2,000 Downtown Denver and DIA Total Regional Riders 2,200 Environmental Impacts The environmental impacts of Phase 1 are discussed in Section 8.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation. • • Phased Project Implementation 8.17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. •8.4.2 Phase 2 As shown in Figure 8-5, Phase 2 includes the following elements. ► Reconstruct 1-25 mainline from SH 1 to SH 14 ► Widen/reconfigure 1-25 with a tolled express lanes from SH 14 to SH 56 ► Reconstruct 1-25 with a tolled express lanes from E-470 to 120th Avenue ► Replace and reconstruct interchanges — I-25/CR 16, l-25/SH 60, 1-25/SH 402, 1-25/Crossroads, 1-25/Harmony, 1-25/Mountain Vista, 1-25/SH 1, would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. A second phase of the I-25/US34 interchanges upgrades would be constructed. ► Replace or construct forty structures, modify eight existing structures, and rehabilitate five existing structures ► Construct the commuter rail line from Longmont to Loveland and construct the associated commuter rail maintenance facility Table 8-6 summarizes the estimated cost by Phase 2 element. Table 8-6 Phase 2 - Estimated Cost by Element Element Estimated Cost(2009 dollars) • Reconstruct 1-25 mainline from SH 1 to SH 14 $141.7 million Widen/reconfigure 1-25 with tolled express lanes from SH 14 to SH 56 $392.9 million Reconstruct 1-25 with tolled express lanes from 120th Avenue to E-470 $88.9 million Replace and reconstruct interchange— I-25/Harmony $38.9 million Construct commuter rail line (Longmont to Loveland) and maintenance facility $379.3 million Install express bus stations and bus maintenance facility $48.6 million Total $1.090 billion • Phased Project Implementation 8-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation- transportation. Figure 8-5 Preferred Alternative Phasing - Phase 2 d LEGEND j Welling Reconstruct mainline r + to correct geometric =Cm Commuter Rails Stations deficiencies and o 1-25 Express Bus Stations (remainder) .287 4M°"ntainvist. replace aging infra- Tolled Express Lanes Q Interchange Reconstruction structure emo=mmemili FasTracks Rail Line 14 - Ault o FasTracks / RTD Transit Station Interchange Fort Collin Prospect • Existing 85 HarmOony♦Im� Severance Eaton 257 I ` , 392 Lucerne • Windsor 34 Crossroads t Lovel nd t"vd `� •• 34 Greeley 5 Garden City 402 257 Evans 28 • C R 1 ' CR 50 + €Z I L R ♦Cam �n 60 Johnstown La Sall. L60 Milliken •rt ad Or.. Phase 2: 0 41 Construction of interchange at US 34 / 36 s CR 34 WELD Rocky Mountain Mead F''"eY" Avenue and 1-25/ 7 86 ♦ US 34 directional Longmont ramps 119--* i 36 i 86 BOULDER . Firestone 119I- ti Fsed•►Ick Iwot ' --, I • —(5✓i O \ 52 I. t WCR 8% DamaoLFrptton Ertel oulder - • j ;119 .1 l ,J 7) 4 . • 93\ 36 LOSS,/ii " t on .` $ Northwest 1µs Rail Corridor slaws , ' ifrowa kti « • ROOMFI ten ► ;r Ave. .Th ♦ Co C res . , 11041 Avy • - /72 Th _ + t u' ear North Metro 'E470: ;Int.ei tonal 9N�AVs Corridor ` Akp}�t • 2 : `� i , ;121' is i c Si i . JEFFER ' ON L - .- '0 — 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 S ' 6 Denver0 --\/ IP - �--Thin North • I• ve Phased Project Implementation 8-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Purpose and Need Phase 2 would incrementally contribute to addressing elements of the project Purpose and Need as follows. ► Need#1: Reduce crashes on portions of 1-25 that have worse than average safety performance. • Reconstruct 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would correct existing substandard shoulders and stopping sight distance to provide continuous, safe refuge for stopped vehicles and emergency use. ► Need#2: Improve mobility and accessibility along the /-25 corridor. • Reconstructing the I-25/Harmony, I-25/Crossroads, and I-25/US 34 interchanges would replace interchanges that are considered functionally obsolete and do not have the capacity to safely or efficiently accommodate higher traffic volumes. • Widening 1-25 between SH 56 and SH 14 and between 120th Avenue and E-470 would improve mobility along the 1-25 corridor. • Reconstructing the I-25/CR 16, I-25/SH 60, I-25/SH 402, I-25/Mountain Vista, and I-25/SH 1 interchanges would improve capacity and therefore enhance accessibility at these locations. ► Need#3: Replace aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure. • • Reconstructing the I-25/CR 16, I-25/SH 60, I-25/SH 402, I-25/Mountain Vista, and I-25/SH 1 interchanges would replace structures that were constructed prior to 1966. ► Need#4: Provide modal alternatives. • Completing express bus service on 1-25 and constructing an initial commuter rail corridor segment between Longmont and Loveland would provide modal alternatives. Environmental Impacts The environmental impacts of Phase 2 are discussed in Section 8.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation • Phased Project Implementation 8.20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 8.4.3 Phase 3 As shown in Figure 8-6 Preferred Alternative Phasing— Phase 3, Phase 3 includes the following elements. ► Completion of commuter rail line (Fort Collins to Loveland and Longmont to North Metro) ► Widening/reconfiguration of 1-25 with tolled express lanes and general purpose lanes from SH 14 to E-470 ► Completion of the I-25/US 34 interchange ► Replace or construct eight new structures, modify 14 structures, and rehabilitate 9 existing structures Table 8-7 summarizes the estimated cost by Phase 3 element. Table 8-7 Phase 3 - Estimated Cost by Element Element Estimated Cost(2009 dollars) Completion of commuter rail line $243.7 million Widening/reconfiguration of I -25 with tolled express lanes/general $123.8 million purpose lanes from SH 14 to E-470 • Completion of the I-25/US 34 interchange $50.8 million Total $418.3 million Purpose and Need Phase 3 would incrementally contribute to addressing elements of the project Purpose and Need as follows. ► Need#2: Improve mobility and accessibility along the 1-25 corridor. • Widening/reconfiguration of I-25 with tolled express lanes from E-470 to SH 66 and widening/reconfiguration of 1-25 with general purpose lanes from E-470 to SH 14 would improve mobility along the 1-25 corridor. • Completion of the US 34 interchange would replace an interchange that is considered functionally obsolete and does not have the capacity to safely or efficiently accommodate higher traffic volumes. ► Need#4: Provide modal alternatives. • Completion of commuter rail service would provide modal alternatives. Environmental Impacts The environmental impacts of Phase 3 are discussed in Section 8.5 Environmental Impacts • and Mitigation. Phased Project Implementation 8-21 Final EIS NORTH I-2S August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 8-6 Preferred Alternative Phasing - Phase 3 LEGEND Wellington ' isim0 25 Commuter Rail & Stations General Purpose Lanes Mountain Vista Imiomon Tolled Express Lanes 287 Interchange Reconstruction FasTracks Rail Line Aul: 14 . o FasTracks / RTD Transit Station • Existing Interchange - Prospept Fort C Ilan i 85 Harmony Imnath - Severance Eaton 257 392 Lucerne Windsor 34 Crossroads Love nd Blvd ♦ f34 , s reeley 402' Garden City 287 CR 1 257: Evans CR 50 60 LARIMER R I M E R Cam one Johnstown - . La &i* 80 i Milliken 56 erthoud Gres Phase 3: Completion of 1-25/ US 34 interchange 36 C R 34 WELD upgrades with III 9 Mead Planet/illdiamond ramp 66 reconstruction Longmont 119 1 36 ,.. l 85 BOULDER Firestone 119 97 287, dertck two' It— 52 52 Fort Upton 1IVCR ' G Dacono Erie) oulder 77• e-e-\- . L yetis 7 A . 7 • 93 , 36 Loulsvil Sri• ton Northwest 144th ve. • ► S Rail Corridor super'. . iroonitietd • H • ROOMFI : LT. ton . -- - — - - . - • - i Ave. • Corti rca Cit I Ave e C Y ' 1 • Mwt glen 72 stl kvt°y" a North Metro .E470 IInbrDnational B4 Ave Corridor art • 2 45)121 • JEFFER ' ON L -1 t V.4 - Miles0 all wn Ill 4011 0 2 4 6 8 10 6 Y: Den er 1 J North 25 II ID Phased Project Implementation 8-22 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 8.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The social and environmental consequences that would result from the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts. Table 8-8 identifies the environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative by phase. Mitigation commitments for these impacts are provided in Section 3.29 Mitigation Summary for the Preferred Alternative The mitigation measures associated with Phase 1 are presented along with the environmental impacts of Phase 1 in Table 8-9. In Phase 1, there would be 10 de minimis uses of Section 4(f) properties. Irretrievable and irreversible commitments of labor, funding, energy, and materials would occur. Irretrievable and irreversible commitments of labor, funding, energy, and materials would occur during full build out of the North 1-25 project. Some improvements to North 1-25, would occur in phases prior to construction of the entire Preferred Alternative and would need to be reconstructed as part of the implementation of the entire Preferred Alternative. As a result, some elements of the Preferred Alternative would need to be reconstructed as phases are completed, which would result in irretrievable losses of labor, funding, energy, and materials. However, the decision to proceed this way was made due to existing funding limitations. The elements of Phase 1, including commuter bus and express bus stations, interchange reconstruction, and tolled express lanes, are anticipated to provide a substantial benefit to corridor users and would therefore offset the irreversible impacts. • • Phased Project Implementation 8.23 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 8-8 Resources Impacted by Phase Preferred Resource Alternative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 (Total Build-Out) Land Use Additional Additional Additional Additional development development development development opportunities, opportunities, opportunities, opportunities, especially around especially around especially around especially around transit stations transit stations transit stations transit stations Social Conditions Relocation of 51 Relocation of 39 Relocation of 12 No relocation of Residences Residences Residences residences 20 residential low 14 residential low 6 residential low No residential low income/minority income/minority income/minority income/minority relocations relocations relocations relocations Economics 23 business 17 business 5 business 1 business displacements displacements displacements displacement Creation of 11,400 Creation of 3,500 Creation of 5,700 Creation of 2,200 temporary jobs temporary jobs temporary jobs temporary jobs Right-of-Way Property acquired Property acquired Property acquired Property acquired (Acquisitions and for right-of-way: for right-of-way: for right-of-way: for right-of-way: Displacements) 889 acres 568 acres 315 acres 6 acres Displacements: Displacements: Displacements: Displacements: 51 residences: 39 residences: 12 residences: No residences: 23 businesses 17 businesses 5 businesses 1 business • Air Quality No substantive No substantive No substantive No substantive impacts impacts impacts impacts Noise and Category B Traffic Category B Traffic Category B Traffic Category B Traffic Vibration Noise Sites: Noise Sites Noise Sites Noise Sites (without 18 additional 10 additional 8 additional 0 impacts mitigation) impacts impacts impacts Moderate to Moderate to Moderate to Moderate to severely impacted severely impacted severely impacted severely impacted rail transit noise rail transit noise rail transit noise rail transit noise sites: sites: sites: sites: 2,215 residences, 0 residences, 1,386 residences, 829 residences, schools, and schools, and schools, and schools, and churches churches churches _ churches Moderate to Moderate to Moderate to Moderate to severely impacted severely impacted severely impacted severely impacted rail transit vibration rail transit vibration rail transit vibration rail transit vibration sites: sites: sites: sites: 40 residences, 0 residences, 26 residences, 14 residences, schools, and schools, and schools, and schools, and churches churches churches churches Water Resources 1,982 acres of 815 acres of 930 acres of 237 acres of impervious surface impervious surface impervious surface impervious surface area area area area Wetlands and 18.18 acres of 7.75 acres of direct 6.02 acres of direct 4.41 acres of direct Waters of the US direct impacts impacts impacts impacts • Phased Project Implementation 8-24 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 8-8 Resources Impacted by Phase (cont'd) Preferred Resource Alternative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 (Total Build-Out) Floodplains 13.0 acres of 7.8 acres of 2.8 acres of 2.4 acres of floodplain flood plain flood plain floodplain encroachment encroachment encroachment encroachment Vegetation 818 acres of 337 acres of 384 acres of 97 acres of vegetation impacts vegetation impacts vegetation impacts vegetation impacts Noxious Weeds 269 acres of soil 111 acres of soil 126 acres of soil 32 acres of soil disturbance disturbance disturbance disturbance Wildlife 57 raptor nest 28 raptor nest 24 raptor nest 23 raptor nest buffers impacted' buffers impacted' buffers impacted' buffers impacted' 14 wildlife 3 wildlife movement 4 wildlife movement 7 wildlife movement movement corridors corridors impacted corridors impacted corridors impacted impacted 1.54 acres of 0.71 acres of 0.55 acres of 0.28 acres of aquatic habitat aquatic habitat aquatic habitat aquatic habitat impacted impacted impacted impacted 1.94 acres of 1.41 acres of 0.47 acres of 0.06 acres of sensitive riparian/ sensitive riparian/ sensitive riparian/ sensitive riparian/ wetland habitat wetland habitat wetland habitat wetland habitat • impacted impacted impacted impacted Threatened, 0.72 acres of 0.25 acres of 0.47 acres of 0.00 acres of Endangered, occupied Preble's occupied Preble's occupied Preble's occupied Preble's Other Federally- Meadow Jumping Meadow Jumping Meadow Jumping Meadow Jumping Protected, and Mouse habitat Mouse habitat Mouse habitat Mouse habitat State Sensitive impacted impacted impacted impacted Species 231.20 acres of 193.71 acres of 28.99 acres of Bald 8.50 acres of Bald Bald Eagle forage Bald Eagle forage Eagle forage habitat Eagle forage habitat habitat impacted habitat impacted impacted impacted 86.41 acres of 47.88 acres of 30.63 acres of 7.9 acres of prairie black-tailed prairie black-tailed prairie black-tailed prairie black-tailed dog dog colonies dog colonies dog colonies colonies impacted impacted impacted impacted Western Burrowing Western Burrowing Western Burrowing Western Burrowing Owl habitat Owl habitat Owl habitat Owl habitat associated with associated with associated with associated with prairie dog colonies prairie dog colonies prairie dog colonies prairie dog colonies indirectly affected. indirectly affected. indirectly affected. indirectly affected. 17.49 acres of 8.03 acres of 6.30 acres of 3.16 acres of Northern Leopard Northern Leopard Northern Leopard Northern Leopard Frog and Common Frog and Common Frog and Common Frog and Common Garter Snake Garter Snake Garter Snake Garter Snake habitat impacted habitat impacted habitat impacted habitat impacted 0.38 acres of 0.15 acres of 0.17 acres of 0.06 acres of sensitive fish sensitive fish sensitive fish sensitive fish • species habitat species habitat species habitat species habitat impacted impacted impacted impacted Phased Project Implementation 8.25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 8-8 Resources Impacted by Phase (cont'd) Preferred Resource Alternative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 (Total Build-Out) Visual Quality Minor impacts Minor impacts Minor impacts Minor impacts include relocation include relocation include relocation include relocation of businesses, of businesses, of businesses, of businesses, addition of station addition of station addition of station addition of station amenities, changes amenities, changes amenities, changes amenities, changes to overpasses, to overpasses, to overpasses, to overpasses, bridges, retaining bridges, retaining bridges, retaining bridges, retaining walls, medians, walls, medians, walls, medians, walls, medians, and road grade and road grade and road grade and road grade Historic 4 adverse affect No adverse affect 1 adverse affect 3 adverse affect Preservation National Register NRHP listed or NRHP listed or NRHP listed or Historic Places eligible sites eligible site eligible sites (NRHP) listed or eligible sites 23 no adverse 6 no adverse affect 16 no adverse 6 no adverse affect affect NRHP listed NRHP listed or affect NRHP listed NRHP listed or or eligible sites2 eligible sites2 or eligible sites2 eligible sites2 Paleontological 3,224 acres of 1,328 acres of 1,515 acres of 381 acres of Resources ground disturbance ground disturbance ground disturbance ground disturbance with potential for with potential for with little potential with potential for paleontological paleontological for paleontological paleontological • resources resources resources resources Hazardous 67 parcels with 50 parcels with 14 parcels with 3 parcels with Materials potential potential potential potential environmental environmental environmental environmental conditions and 20 conditions and 15 conditions and 4 conditions and 1 parcels with known parcels with known parcels with known parcel with known environmental environmental environmental environmental conditions conditions conditions conditions Parks and 6 park or recreation 2 park or recreation 2 park or recreation 2 park or recreation Recreation resources resources resources resources impacted impacted impacted impacted Section 6(f) No effects on any No effects on any No effects on any No effects on any Resources 6(f) resources 6(f) resources 6(f) resources 6(f)resources Farmlands 977.2 acres of 402.8 acres of 459.3 acres of 115.1 acres of conversion of conversion of conversion of conversion of farmlands farmlands farmlands farmlands Energy Use approximately Use approximately Use approximately Use approximately 0.9 percent more 0.9 percent more 0.9 percent more 0.9 percent more energy than No- energy than No- energy than No- energy than No- Action Action Action Action Public Safety and 70 percent No reduction in at Reduction in at Reduction in at Security reduction in at grade crossing grade crossing grade crossing grade crossing collisions collisions along collisions along collisions constructed constructed commuter rail line commuter rail line • Phased Project Implementation 8-26 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • nformation cooperation transportation. Table 8-8 Resources Impacted by Phase (cont'd) Preferred Resource Alternative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 (Total Build-Out) Construction Temporary impacts Temporary impacts Temporary impacts Temporary impacts to traffic patterns to traffic patterns to traffic patterns to traffic patterns and congestion, and congestion, and congestion, and congestion, noise and vibration, noise and vibration, noise and vibration, noise and vibration, air quality, and air quality, and air quality, and air quality, and visual presence visual presence visual presence visual presence Section 4(f) 4 National Register 1 NRHP listed or 3 NRHP listed or Properties of Historic Places eligible site with eligible sites with (NRHP) listed or land permanently land permanently eligible sites with incorporated into incorporated into land permanently transportation transportation incorporated into infrastructure infrastructure transportation infrastructure 23 NRHP listed or 6 NRHP listed or 16 NRHP listed or 6 NRHP listed or eligible site with eligible sites with eligible sites with eligible sites with de minimis uses2 de minimis uses2 de minimis uses2 de minimis uses' 1 park with land 1 park with land permanently permanently incorporated into incorporated into • transportation transportation infrastructure infrastructure 3 parks with 2 parks with 1 park with de minimis uses de minimis uses de minimis uses 3 trails with 3 trails with 2 trails with de minimis uses de minimis uses temporary occupancy 2 trails with temporary occupancy 'Several of the 57 existing raptor nest site buffer areas overlap more than one Phase of the Preferred Alternative resulting in two or more impacts to that raptor nest site buffer 2The sum of Historic Resources with a No Adverse Effect determination,when totaled by Phase, is greater than the number listed in the Preferred Alternative Total Build-out because some resources have multiple segments that are impacted by separate phases. • Phased Project Implementation 8-27 •r > 0P: o c -moT • 0 T p N p O) q 0 Y C 3 N .' C C C N L N a a o ° 0 U CO J ~ O p- ` ` a - O o O (0 Q) ... • W N �/� ;(9§ ` a.c- .- O O 0 o CO a r--1 coN V -O U O ° o N W a 0_c c c me c m 0 3 c ° c or o .O :� a d C ° J p ° E N 01 E co o c -o --.,z O o cco .- o ma) EN 2 _ o' 'cmN -O �' co oC N pm =2 ° `Oa- o T ° a N w c_ ° a= N 'O O) c 3o m • E .0a' c rn0N Pc $ ° 8 O c Ea ° c°i oo a) .O :13 O E. a O a U C a O E 'O m ooY > > Emcm a) -c and am > O C aLD 'O -O c co O o c L CO N O " C N L. C CO ° u) m m w O -0 O Q) vim 3 fl3 0 O0 O N p Q Q C O m cc c -O C o w E Q) moo c'w ° '_ off uV gym . c 0 O '> O co c 03ac '0 a ° EE c ` m o a mu°) NE 2N waN :? ° O) "O 50 -0o Q) O c°j £ o m .c.. .- C O N ° j a a 41 ° C d o a s O m CO 'm _= - Dow y 3 0 ≤ CON c N N a • d E co ccoo E Oo ES ° .� o)-- m o oo a Z UzL' a .> E .. o) ccooa a L ? Co N 0 Co E 2 c m ° Q) 0 oa °er- a) a) o c Q) a 6 a 00 E a j N ca p O t o T C! EO Q) coco .2 < N co a Oa m• E p o a 0 co r i0 C O Q) O Q C T Q) Q) N O O « .L.. 'mO bi) m o z c0 E c m m E m y � E 3 ai o o o c c° —°° > -° o � E a ° ° ° Q � ° a ->p • coo ° a3 ° "0 ou N c � aZ cy QEi y � 3 �- 3 ° m m C O c N a ° J 2 'O 'O 'p O L. .— Q) C N N <o N -- a0 v ) a °c ° C C N 'O 0w a) a O MU) CO 2 3m E 0I N X N C 3 N C O 3 W T f0 0 ° 0 >-."(3 a m ° y . „,03 ID °- om car E co3 c a"- 04 I.. � � a3 umia) v) m ') y y o ca ° QELmU o E m m ' m c a Q`_) co co 3 co o PI a C c QQ)) N a a N L N N o ` L C ."T' 3 OZ. ` E ° N Y 0 co m- o Q) TD = co L 7 > .@ y r o 1 o E a • a) o c o m a c � a -o > O � _ wa o ° o o da wEo c m 3a) gt- ea E =) 3 E mo 3r ` m CO 3 m Crc 3 o E o �� oo O CI 0 N N N 3 N O 0 N M o a) c N O ≤ _ N "O c = c O N E N ... N aN•r L. rO L Q) 00 Cr C -PcO 0 O a) co co N C o ' o m N C N N o C c N W lq O 00 3 m N .L. r .co° C C O °O 'O WE ,'C c Y E 00 2' -p ° m m c 01 m EQNr Nc c o y cm yU a) m Ec Lo a) m Lmo Q` o 7 0 N O) c o o m U dy t ] m C > > O O m N > V "O m liQ o°)o 0 > > or Sod O U 0a O7 dw � as o .N. 8 r aa 12 2 c ° .c0 ° - • .�. c0 c awa) cmi � co 'O a� cQ ¢ "-ow E > aac ig W Eov� cLn -�oov) m .Ca 4-d .J E = m = Z y E Ma) W p m a s a a) a) r • o ° a) ° a7 > 3 '3 � IA T° v a o '° E � � 3 N 5 < 0i � C N U - N O) N N o 3 ° 22 N '≥ co O >• a) '(.7) O 'C m3 8 m Eoca -a co 0 N C co C @ 0c U o_ p N T O N 1r-1 N• s.. U 03 3 - U J ° ) W U ` O 7 cc H c N V) U y N ≥ c6 'N x i° a) 5 o O)� C O O O o' a) C �` fl .q c ° O .0 O a p L E Q O p O �jO N N N o ` U 0 .00) !� CD w -O U N °U a) U = O a) c L 'OO co O1� C O C 'p d a) -O ro N N ° y O J O O N N N ` N t E J C E Cr a) 2 co N C Y UL N a a)O � c .L.• a O a) ' o oo) • na, cocCD E a as . J 0 > N N ^ J -O C 0 -- 01700 N U C 4) N > la a CO U ° H N L N O Q o J O N O y U ° J N N c E N �- J N C C) i. - 3 a) C N a l o o a7 5 J 'N Q > U En co E d Q D O` _ 'O a) ° - . N ° C_ ° 2 c a) a N a) a Q N O L C U p. O ° E (a c a) c d .a O o o '� _N _ c r CI O n = n O N N o o O (a a) N C) a7 — O. f/) co a) U .L.. ) U .L. o a? .C o) 327. ° -33 as cCaa) QNV N a) E N '-N3E Nab mE cE@ EaciN � 0 • a as E m a° w a o a N v o f a w moo . c -oZa) N "yca) ma > o0 —Er G .c a3 o 2 o m d t c 0- 0rn ° a> a5 p O co o a Z H a H w a > E < r a H E m 2 a` a N 0 N to ac 0 o a >8 a, D O) o a C C 00 C. 'O as f/) N CO j O N 0 U 0 2 C ° > tt CI co Q as X > J O a -0 p E .r t O in t a) J C a a a) 0 y Q L' o cwE co c yca '0 a) O L -p a s 'O 4) a7 a) bj N o) J a N p aa)) o c aa)) ccoo N y+ U -° N O > E N O O LU N v c -o w 3O a) 3 >. .0 .� not a) rn a _ _ G N y N N 0 p a) o (a p)r i--i N a) •, L c C N t o) m -° O C a1 O r v a c o p a E 'o co c a _ a or H co L N N U L i o a E C N T. E c 3 -0 m 2 ul 3 � c > 0x o--o N r �t o 04 d r V ..-- x C a ate) C CO N -O N u/ .O a �) x ..- o ...,..... c yw 6. C .60 45 0 > E ya) ai m m o _ = m O oos �EZ'° o ° � 000 CO a30 CO 2 V co r N 2 C 2 U y a) N )°p N C E N:. N a) N OO on 00 J C Y Ill iI Q ? E ,U) ° ao a 0. « co m E VI 4--, ti 3 Cr o a ° ac) 0o a) () ,..° L a) ._ 004;100 C o c « 'O N a in E ,� INa p co CC H H a H U o_ m (n .O O .c J o a o O. an o b a to E . A. m ' A K 2 ¢ mE F ID W 0 C C 76 `1 C a) O O 1, • c 0 J = _N N aJ N ate) N) D c d ° N '3 m .. m 3 0 c E ° CO = CO o ° d E °' E 'er 3 ° a 3 ° am .a m ° 5 ai ° >' ° m — a) c ° >. m C N N �p N d J C coN c J J ° 'N o N J U) O 0 = O 2 N a) C N N ..� U a) U O C "0 a 0 ° >66.c).!'1 2 m E ° ° .5) a t 3 m a) w a) t N U N — t O N a N a N N as o -0 O)a I 14 8 o � � c � a j «? >_ �_ � o 03 0 ° 0 E `p .0 Q Y C °_' ° co y O _ ° N c 0 O a O O N U ° J > a ° C Z ° ° o o ≥ ° N E O o 3 E w r ° ° _ N -0 N O O C p ° a U N N O` E 0) -Q E 0I v°, a) O co co .0 C _ O N a) a p as N 2 2 a) E a) 'U C — q sC N ° c N a- N U) r g 0 C 'N ) 00 - 0) '3 .C -0 p a) O 2 -02C U V p C J E O>,) a1 0E - E O a72. 0J° a - of 0 -0 ma) 2 cE 0E am w 3 N C C) a C CU p .0 > `0 N a A >. 3 ° a N 2 C O .E ° m ° 0)Y a) U N co U a:.. w ° CEE ° c � N E 2 -pao N � La CuaNy m E .. _ ° c oo c 'E ._ a) c ° c o) Ea) rm f o a) w4 o r_ E m ° a � J ° ° . o o c ' c 00 E = 2 ° E -0 3 a 3a o > 0a`) � � � Cuc c 0 ma TQN a ° N `O = a) N C N N JN O1C O N o 0 0 ° ° ° rn Ew 'mmo ° o >; r) . 3 oya -° oaaoc EE 'c3 :4 - o � 'mya �� °c °) c0) aI--0_— � ` 3Ep c '� o m � U 0) 0 ' 5 o c 0 O- . c � 'o m 00 O > Eo • C Cu ° Na — a) Qa) 2i— E 2 Qc°) Ho w °3O a ° .- 6- Ur � eo o o d H N - - S 5 a a a - o S .p a d a eC 0c J r E CO U C Y CL E J N T N N ° 0 N .O co a CII a) t co o N a3 C aS j "O C D a Er 0 O 0 E O CU 3 O ra Si ea O N Z OD ° N C E r ° J J c a ° p v°i J .0 vN a) E a) C 0 > m 2 ftC L J -0 t 0 a Y u 3 . -oa E ° J. o R _c a) C > OL a) U a0` d N 4- En YO Hr (/) m O N ° a) w "'"O C c > U H o V )p U N ° col) if, a) a) Cu -O C 'U J DM = K r b 0. 4 co a) " w co --0 — c r ,ft O N E 0 a f� p U) C Cr U x 0 0 0 0 C a) > .N NCW .. E N > OE aioE 0a m ° J y > O -°0 O a N -0 -0 CO 0 C 7 K r+ c -o ECJ c .4 a0i Jaci LL a rn - ° ° m2.a0Uc0) )r TO a ° ° .N w J O A N a) Q C ° d U C .0 t C O O O- I- a a) m a a ZZ0 IT) Em - F N • o -CIrc ° jco ` 7.5 oOEo °o Enna) c E a 0• D a) '- co @ O a> N a N O 'U K '0 -O O O) J d N a a) E m a) c 8 Or g a $ 2 '-^ 4 a E - o .$ ! N N N 'E O 0 .o ± C C ar E .O I t W o a E .J a) C N L d N N o E C CC O aN Nia c apt@ V .0 � mam E ° CN N V I) all E 0 C .. y -O - N C N J C -O O E J V (6- N a a) O O C 4 N N '� O O) a ,.O_ /� N E c d 'O CO > C C N U `1=0 ,_0 N — E .c C >. co a Far N m N . E c a w - :° ° E ao E v ai � — a To O a) N N P E m N a E CO - E2aE = Dom mmmoY0 .naa) amp Er acc ' 0a 0J0a) O. 0E E J 0 N O C) co- J L a) O 0 -0 J N c a1 s_ 0c N a 0 E a a) c C N _ N J CO -Co a a E� E 6. a N `a m .r YO J U NE N a C N a) A Eu; .>-. aa°) Y � oar@ aciE o a ' � E � mEE0 o'0 o 'O CO N C N ' O O) 0 L C N N -O r.J. C J C - _C 2 C Cd a N C 0 92 E a) aoa Z. a� 3Na g co 0 2 w m J 2 x > 12 -o a a 0 m Ol N 00 -000 a L W ? N N 'A ` N > 0 "O C .E N N N L N a N E N C a c a • a E J > O M 0 E a .� D a m ca n 'C d 2 E L O m � . E 2 a� a; N m 2 3 � .o m a co H aED C< Q mw N a 2 ° E0 co r• I t E3a� N d O a • • < of 3 a v m to co a a E E O cn C 0 a by r no 0 a 4- td a a E H in H V ar CO m a x E o Fe U v 0 CO N C W y ° 0 J N .V.. to 0 C re I. LL� Q D. a) 7 u m a a a Q F U U N N C "N" C YO 2 CO C o C N C U N o U a) a) N Cu d C -O U N E a) L = • ro � . 3 a) c m .'3. O » -o -2 > -o - Ca aoco o- S a) � '� o TN f/1 QO � ~ OU O m O C d j CO OOOO c O)Uo .. N "O a) CO N = C co O) Oo us O -c C J -o c > O N 0 0 t O C C E o co .N a) a) O 3 N C c a a) N - 3 -O o c ,_ W ° _ a c a m a O o a E N 1:' ° o Til y y ° Tc o O E o m ° oa E o � � E° E o 0 .? m c 0 3 > 7 __ Y O m N N N ° _ a) 2 O C N 0 j w C C F-� c ° a� 3 E C 'c � � a � E m a N a) -o 0 � w > � a ° Da > y >, `o � � ai � c o, � ym ._.. N N ° 0 0 0 0 d O. a) C ) N N c N .N C ,- c- Nd 000a E' aE . c -o � m m a3 n mc° a) U C . oNN O oLc j O O N c0 UO a) a) "' 1] ... O 3 m j N co co 0 C . ° -° N : 3 C m a) N U a) co c N .c CO 'O O c O o a) a) N N n C O y c $ Lala y c 0 C N 3 a) 3L am m aoci y c w a 7 2 .-- N ea O N c c 'CD v0i N O E c y 3 °) E E a) o o � 0 a � . a m o -O aa) � E r c x 'y a ≥ c N N -o 5 o) o y co m t C O a) C 0 C = U O O C O O C ] 0 ca C 455 'O f O .0 w � < m o x a E N a E m C 0 � � .> a0 c Z O 0 � ° > c o E c .c C c .3 4 a) c D a) m y rn O o o o it • y o- m g `° y � a 'N d Wiz° a) a Z 5271, 707° >, E � E °) 2 m` .;3 my , o` a) a) c co 2 ° om O ccco - aa)) in .o o >e- = oz a) f . Form .≥ m =om ' U0a-° = m ° m ae °) ° y o ` a W ` 0 O N -O P J >. - L O a o_ 3 N N J E tV • A E0 .> EaEcgComm` ...11 tin -O W 3c a_ as 2 i, 00 C L L m Q O` 'o = s a s s D o c a) a) L 'o 2 Faa) LLcc UUasEDi3 s a a s a a v ts m E N E eta o a NN aL U CL co co O Ea) m ft N a) 3 ° a c N N ° N 76 : m O as CO F• Q Z E a) )d O 'O t N C y U E °I a! CO co 00 .- 5 E C o aa)i o a r ° '., o C. a) O La � r co 7 e o n N o y O a y — oo) ayi > ao3 0 ° C 7 K 9 m N c c iIQ CO W E o 7O CO 0 (7) .N • Ill A N N U !] L O c N O = m a z a .. z 2 [-I E -C 'O N 'O T • to O C N a m a co C 3cN � z -CcCc0E ma c c p °� a d �„° N .N L a o fa a) o N O t S) J C .°. a x U 0 = .E m C U N y p com a U C ._ ,= e 0030 E � 050 ~ a� ° ° g C -6 r) In `n = i U C U 0) `a.N. N V t C ≤ m o @ .0 C O nl i� 115 in m e a) ,- m O Om m c a = 2 C , W . a m ° cc o 3 O7. .o H d o p m .c N a a a ti 0EO N N '°paa) aca ° , �O-, m oO po) X o m EY � -o m > aO 'm a) c y - 3 U 3 mE E m > p o E a o p z m o a O e o m a3 E = p m o o u d m C o .3 m Z - o C 3 N 7 ° L LL a C ° ?) U 0, E 0 5 0) :4 3 .tO. m-o r a E CO a m = O w c ccc c oc -p E m 330 - .N � a3 � � _ `O � >. C c o) a 0 a oc° � ami C O E N >' 0 C or y �° O a) N Y y N y N L m C N U C m ° O •-C J N C -° C O) a N C C E C O N 2 .- m 'C sTC r y 0 O) N _) a) m m O 'C (a DO ai v N -o N -0 0 = E E a E mM w aa) co c0 � N C22ct>>° = � p . a) °) C C aa)) y N °U 0, a) L aa) U a) > � ND m a. n E EN c 0) > co a '0 CO a C E > av � t cao, 2 ma o a m3 oN aNm y C@ 'o >i ° a o co C 'JO a p C C = N N It O x m co ° o _ cy m c tea) a CO ° � '3 cL -a- a) a 2 0. EoEm _mLto' 00 --o Ea co > 0 0 c mT. rcCO00) m a H c •E —cE3 cU2c > Q p) a) -p a) v, c„ ° .> o0 ° U o` _ V .- E y 00O0o -0 C° � y U mN N C- '- UN _ am a ° CI) Qo a c ,. Oa " C = y co aN c > m oc — Oa c o) c _0) f a? ai'Lw . E3 °' ov °) m U 0 a) 0 � 0 '« O I_ N W o N m -O co N J a O O U UC) f C N a) a N CCO m CD 0 E • ) Ct � � cu, ,_ "p � ct, 0-2 mm `° .3aoE � ' E ~ v acico 0. d 2 a m N 7 -°)0 O C) 0] N N 3 N N a a L 0 CO N O a (/J y C aMi +� y oNEO � m � aciamma) j� E °? mmo° � a aQ - UwQE2 Tice m c m -C .� 2 2 O 91 a t ° d o a Q °cnOa... 3 co woo3 `ooLL.� io3 ° re `O � ° I- ssa - a` v v cii cCt o o a.. E m E o — a) 0 N N • a) o c 3 .>. OD co 3 as a) y O y O Q. 'mt 3 0 0 C co co N Q c- f<O N ° T N Z ✓ 2 c m G. N co Cr E E y . O cn 'r '5 o ma O0 O c N ad ra o a N C N a mg E m °� o m vCO W y 7p i- m e ° m 7 o 7 a'- 2 N mrn d o Et '— z cm C 0 IX d — co o- O .o • it Q a K co'.- 2 m m a) co 0 1. a ; Dg > ad y O 2 s) a3 'x3 � 3 ° , E ro 0 C U N O C E y ' N = _ • .o m `m m a -� 3 -o a 3 ° a s a) N u m N CV E0 OS Co ° E ° N ses O c -o c 4 y ma " a; oa m E o a� 4-'05 -6 Um mE 3 3o A_ a 3 oC I � o ._ o0 ��... c -'O o T U -o EO c .> 2 U 0) y W — m N a NrI-1-1 v v ow c%. a) to '� co it -.-• 78 3c 3 � c-) H w m a) r 0 L O J Q a a m C = co x oo a) C a) .LJ U' C N ° a) J ' a) ° a) Li E 3 3 � m o a) L.) ,C ° 0 3 . _ `o E ° o a m a ° a CO CO = •5 m >. a) E •S tw ° ° � ° 52 -c cn g w a O 6 tll N ° C m N C O) > C ° U o a ° i • to . ° O 'U a) S] C N a) C O m V E .t.. co co p co c E N ym E v V E m No 00 ' CD > > ° ca m3 ° aa)) c0 mo. 2Oc _ `m Nam o• � a ' E y c o o m c ° ° Uo Lc coo 00 1-) p° 2= to °ivw CO t mm � 'omca o « .t°, _ y N asp O a) 2 ,_ r 0 3 c ca ca 5 u, m U c 3 c c — o a3 c o) o)cEC _co E - co C — F 3U • o w U N ° a) .0 C co `O ° U 3 N `O a) v) t°. 0 t ° ° — 'O c °C a>U -O Oo C o ° l CD .N ° m N 'o .. (Ca ° to c E a) ° o E T o o N o O ° 05 m a) = p aa) 2 2 ! E 00 2 c c mac 22 m Ear o)cnF a t o 3 `0 := `0 0 � mcm o ° ' a) a -6 CL �o cQ : 2 twm ? -o • o0mamrnc°i � a� Noecm 0rU0vo O 9 ° 0 N m - �a o 3 c j 5 a°, c - c CO y m o O CD o o a C a) o o o) ... a) a) 5 W .m 0 a) v y c a) ° ° .0 W CO E m .J o C r a ° ` r 13 m c a 00 m 'O C .J N O) 0 ° cn a) v m ° w w n o -mo .C m e Crs- coo o ° ° a co C c c O 0 ` . ° c U � 'o • m o > oOm c 0 00o co °cwDre v) oL � N � E3B wow g`o rn � mm � 000 O .C y . ` °) m 0 . . . .- o ° o "O U € m N a o CL. K t7tU _ UaOtmm` tt2 a L. y 3 as as EC a a O Cr C O co OA yF C co r. ci R 00 E F.1 CO 1. 1 V CI) CO m a E o P-4 a) CO N ` W y 0 — J 00 en ) c 7 IL Q CT 00 ° • C OJ a/ .c m a H • - 'O• C cr. LI m L w L a) O CO Cu O N Cu C E CD a U 3 -NO E O O E a) C 000) E cjca� 0Om - aa)ia a E o N (a 3 E t` y - a) =- co 0)._ a4- a) 0 m L N m3 p (3 -oo . 1cza — ocr au C 1 .004- a) .2 mo `oEu) cw — a) m m N O J CDO) N O N O O E 2 N !f1 V� -b -p 3 m a L J Q o op as um N = p) N c ' ." m O - N w E :. cvr 20 ° 3 Em P.....1 i W �/ m L L a) '- m o o • y c r v o O 'N L (6 ` E -2 -6 a c -2 'ea Z • C j 75 a 0 D N E > tD a a E c o a o o o E �° M � � o a mc°) o wm0auooy � o .EEm � m O 1,15 E c 3w a '3m Ui- -2 ' aa)) `ou_ E `-- o f �° 'o ��// 4= c O C p a .E N -p a) m ... O m x p n m 4 _ 3 C J o m a T N (n o C v a) o.) c -.— o a) _ a) m N r co v . 1] J mm . 232a ")la c - 3ui. m � po`om� °C) OCo Z' m U .O N y O O Z cc U j C N Q Oj N U N J "O .O C C_ m ac o m c m 0 � a= o r m = m oo E -O m m m ' a EoO J3 ° c oos "oNLL •ol] J -0 .N, '9 = O— ° N a 0— m _O C U o' N N 17 'O — 0 m ea C a) 2 C C n N@ 2 d N_ N C O C N C C a) 3 N d 0 c 0_2 a c a) , Loco ._ -0 O ' lO U m m a w fa v m m m O 0 m M E W o 'Oa) N n c 1 a) L ma) _ U - c2 Ea) UEpocr ` vmco) 3p -0ac) NaY = a . 0 m o_Q o a— o m y h E o m o m _ E t o . 3 a) co aEm EL E m o O .3 aemu, n'y o o o m o ' p . 3 O 3 w _w m 9 a c c u N .?i p) N O m ) 3 .a'. U a) _O U : 'a o . N 0-'5 C m y C Fa N m 'ON c ° °^ E U � 'n -0 .caa)) m (Qn _ Oc32aCC -D oE ≥ 2 (co co o E ac aka co CO L o � mQ a Li cDo c m m CO � M O " :° C C C C▪O O L .N. E aOp) Q N 3 n N .Lo. . WI OI C0C m OI U 0 3 0 C _ • w — o *.o 03 a mX E c -p2 ° moa>'i c a � otEo ` a' cacm ° Cc CD NN m came C >,:. .N ` c 3 '3ao@m _ mFawc -Omo co 3 N C • p- CO O) L N CO O L _O a) a .O m N 2 'O O J m cf.) E • om 3o8 '0 � m ao 33 oC C0C- o t a ° 2 n '� N U O L N N N E._ C U a O w c D)C C C O C y m p � d U m -O •L O) u CO U m E o .- U -o o c m ca m m E " oCO o a a o CD L O n — U N c m a) r N N O N N C 0 E in 0 o � L. I- o s S UEQCuwD . nm33U3 (noa a a d aa t' N r co T N co co �' a ea o p C Y_ co T C d 1 n3 E m a) 2@ O c N a o 0 a C O C co m N J — (/� Ea) 2 £ o m3 m a) O am 0 CO -` 0mm � mo) O EN om o a O L 3 Y N c T O C O 'O N (a bt O `1 C O N = .L-. J CO N C U -O C O .a'. CO Up oo '; E 'dm ° = - mow i. m C as m 2 D J n a p .) o p C0U Y d m N a .a'.. U a) C O N O co .7 in 17 CO- N 0moa Nog Ct N- 2 Em _c CD m 3 N O U CD -O N C a m J.+ 45 • O ' N ... L 3 J _ p N L V O .-. 00 ° 70_O .. m m o O) O J a/ r m co y C J C N N .O c 3 u -0 c o j' a cact 17 ` � E m � ..-.M 0.,° ma ON .L.. 00 N y L E j C O C - N E NO = O 5 a) U 0 m '6 U . OCD C m aC E m "O "' n m m o o ° 3 CCutC -0 CD tw =o m y .m. (0 '5'5 OW E '- N 2 m C p E a) m X E i 'O m U m a 0 ' O.Z. CO p_ 'N N o Cr ar m3 >. x = '? CO E � c � o . °c (q N p 3 _te p o N 'O a) U C U . J J o — m L CO W N 0 'O E o C o � 't ro c r E 2 ' a = 2 m CO C) 0 N C (.) 00 .045 .2 ea 3 N U m 00 — ... O a CO -FaN O C O N 17 7 rc m N p N 3 . fa `o N • LL a oo N C „ 15 C U N m o C C m N "00 O 2 Clio.) p) C C O m co u E T. C m m o ^' CO m o N '0 U N m N N N 0) 'O C > L m it F a) aJ To • y 0 o c o o 5 m x LL co o = o c c ` 4- . 0 lc m Y Tai E c 3 � � � m yo y 0 0 O N �- 'O 0 O N a) a U N O 13 Lei O C N L_ m O E a) co N 0 O L a) L N > w 3 E O - E CO m a al 3 in 4 q u '5 o f o EP E o co 3 o a> o o a) �.t a) Q (a O a) C "O o a�' O rl W 2,- a 2 0 0 C a L�OL d IO 0 C a 0c c CO 7 CO O CO o > co t •aj O a O O to O O O):. 'o N o 0 CO CO O) C)iy j O 0 a V N E ` O m O a N O C 0 — o) - O N N co U c ��Oj E a eoYca) .o -OO3 as oo E m F-. 0 -0 w O o d d co a 0 E▪ a) O 2 0 O - O _ O a) 0 `O a) U a0i y > 0 y 3 a c .E a) a tt N _m m .0- 0 al 0 -0 C w o CO 0 c 'o> �L p) CO En o '� ;_, 0 0 C , m = 0 'o a 0 a E a SE o � a o oc i5 lc O � 0 3D a> > o N O D O y O O 0 O Q YO LL rn O` U vj a) N c j j N J a) a) N a) C N C C 01,12g a a' m E 33 0 E t E -oc J .6 oo 0) 3 co a) ca L- a, � 'R co a) oa) Dc a) o) o) '. a) o -OU o co — v o D o o w o _c E c �° � c m � m cu oia cLi � H _ -o N -o , E I- O 3 o)a> enw mo) .nm o)01 >,8ai) c § 600u) a r2 co 2 T N 0 0 O U O c .O c 2 .-u)▪ C) ,O -0 O w m tii" __ N c 0 E ) < ac) cocm = c '- ocoa) OoOa) 3 " 3 o m o c O) en 3 CO a -o O a) = c o a) U o w O c .w -aO N o (a U — '- >. N -0 c ` OE C W 0 O rn E c .oa 3 � 0 .oa oy = WI -C3 `4 CT) N m"° `m o °con -o D w a o O. a) 3 win y -o o o ac) 3 0▪ O) O) T c T L O c o, E 'O .0 " H N r O O F O N _ r O 'y 'y O f00 O d O_.o) .N H c 'J" O " `- c = O N C E 01 • '. gl if 0 o : OOr -o � c � -oOCU < owU -$ .- u) ma60a .7 "? a 0 L t m m a OV a H a A a a a a .o CD a` w ea O N L E c a E 0 (n O 0 a O m co a �A 0i • n w c c N O O▪ m Pt o_ a_O O O O ea O O 0 - = — `) eft O O O U 0) m - E C . 0 N 'N o O co E aS o a U E 4O in N N @ _ a CD N E $ x .N-X O N W y 0 O •c ,O C j C a w .4 it 44 T r A E w y0 co m ° -o c a • O c 171 O O co L o O oL ey a u H Illth ° d 12 co m0oCa o@ m •E' a? E o -o Cl)• U � mo � a zoo ° o m O U C Q N .0 3 o O E O C J ® N a N CO U "0 N D a D. O N a J O '° y - - m .c Y N C E 0 o c 00. N L 0 o DO C L 2] •X L E a O _ o) I C E .0 i _J m H N U N - O Inv-) R E U000 EN N ENom -o -O N N C e 76".L co .p) .L. jL N N "1-1 ..=- OTana) a O "O N coN` N +7r.Yy E -§ � c3 ova E � Ea � 0' 3 ma O o am o o @ 2 'R. � `. 0 )- a0 c c o z - .C ONCE m � � mcL `aN o. c o 0 o m c o m o 0 0 > E C O C N J C a s .0 ≤ N L a '00 'm0 .m J CO m o 3 = C m = o in m c oamto caci m ° 3 �° a3 c o -ace"m NEo o ° oac �a o -om o = c a> 92N of ° yo — ' -aa � o :9 J• C cc m c U $ N O = N C Fa O p� U N m L- -O a e ~ U m N a N 3 m co m j 21 E > Y m m o ' O' C � > - O aI — N O 0 C o a � Nom' .O -O Co O1 N �q E •••=. C LL N C V (V coC C0 U > N 0 O Fr, L O o C J N O m m 4= a) N o d N = U N o J O (a N U g N >i .c O = Y 'O J CU -0 o O "UO U O m tO 0 00- > J J.L aa)i 3 m c 0 E 0 N d .L.. N J fa N s- N C L a ' m m 'O C L 'O > N U 0 'O O N 'U 3 2' y L `1 C C 0 = a 0 > a w 0 W C C &I0-. 0 a 0 Ol m m 0 W 3 C 0 C C N N C N C 'n a) N C r �O C Q o U C m !37 d '0 ya m m .m U - O +`' 0 "O 0 0 OU o 5 O 0 o o a O a .- N .o m a) p C "I c L ``J, E E • -O 0 ' C H o ≤ p O a N2 N 'C d ma � � (o � m � � � po KOUddor � � c E02 G 0 •C).0 ¢ m -J E m G o o U m w a3 � wN ¢ rn ° � W O a. En co A. a . . . . . 'o Vd N U u u) ea a.0 a ao E m O 0 Li) o 0 C To CO O /0 (6 tt 0 et a3 OD 0 3 ..n -0 0 .ti c 'C m N L y N 'O C n m mir, m vi E o 0 b c O m Or L U - E a c 0 y o N t c 3 0 b O. >tO 0 o E o o c o o— CO N 0 Ua' o C s N 0 M CO O co a Illa CO N 7 m N C_ C) X 0 c L LL Q 7.O - 0 U O N cu O. .l, .C 0 o L C m a > cc r m H O a U — `O > O 0 -o a) C U CD N • o Cu CO N "O m 0 �.N N U C co o 0 a) 4= 7 ° Ct3o C3 N C N OWLS) a) Cu T ct N a o a To c a co aC> voi 3 .o 0 C c ° -o E so � $ w a U Y E m cc aNi o m C V ccu O o c rrvvnn'' _ N a a a0 Y O c L 17 V U O N L o m N ^ H J m U � y > a) 0 m U "O a) ` Cu U N 3 too r--i w U -OL. C O C m .c -o Sa a) > y N a o — rr+ O -o a) = _ >. O a> o too C a) V d CO 0) C O c6 Z d 0 ° 0 3 o a) _U L co a) m L C — O a> Q O j O E O E '- 0 C o a (o 0 0 J @ 'O mC to cm 8 y co a) 0 a) a) a) o L o > 3 m -o o- — c a— F- U N c) O >, a) c " -O C CO. Cu 2 u ac a ° E m W o) ° m j ° m u mF o f c m m C J O C a) a) to co o m Y o a N N a¢ `tr, a) > -o° SDomC mo ° @am 003 E omama' 3 'o o > ' m 0a a3 o ' o o JL — 0 3 — m � -0 '� O m 0 a a L o m o c m aCO � c 0 a)— E = 2 o .§ = y m .o- E C k - m0 C 0 0) _00. o a) -ooao3Co0 > a0imo .0oo20cu_ O _ mJ O J Y .c C Cr 0 Eaco3CmowNzEo2wmcate) com a) 03 cn °) = L. m o N o coo)= au co a a) 'c — 'co N o)a) '- C OCl 0 o 0) c a) = Y N C 'O 'O >.. o 0 — a) .,—~ 'O a) Q U m c o•`o ay >'co Eoc = CC al L m E 3 > m )onamiaai -c °) f � ca> � m3 3y > aa)) 0Eo -§ mw tf 0 aa)) a o u � 'L' 0La0 cma c a E c E � E3w = c 'U ° O a mom co aoi � ' CDC .C - o aC 0 O . mc y U acc o)'x coo o � aa)) 2m cO «) 'o adm 3Q >. C � myur om � 3 N � > c > � c � = m ≥ d 2 `o2c = dm0 ' 0Pca) L -ou, -o - Cu mo yo - 3a) o) c m O K L L .°). c 0 0 0 0 a co f w > >. a) °' N 0 3 aa) m N a3 E E m • "O N 0) a) w � o . 0) - O a) 0 m a co) a) 2 m O � C co L -c a.'O_' E L '� y m Ca � oZ3S `oE3LENpLmUZd0233coco o Sob 0 .c c = a.... 5 = o d o a a3 (nS - - - - wca a t' d a Co E 8 a) 0 ° cti C w, c . Cu O p '92 to 2 a tot c N •IS a r0 U J L 3 w ea U U U co o J 0 8 N To "o _H 0 -o J 0 N ti - Co a 0 C 0 E o J ° o CO C ` U• C C N W z 7 v as o N O 00 m ,- 65C ill c O) K >+ o o LLa - aE • aq d o CO • z L O o o h' m a Z [Ca a) F - O) °• Em co°)-5o � a) a r � 0 Da oa 2a CO Uco 3 —> 3 N a .3 c r) .° y c c r -° y . ..- ° ° 2 m a o C Y@ c C N O U a (0C a a) E `))ai 2 C O = •3 $ oc) E o c 0 cnn co ai a 3 y TO ' J 5 .3 'O -0 o j ° m ≥ '- O - a a) o c "- N N a t O co ID a r r - ma L E E mo N o m N Li v c H c o m c 3 N UI]o 2 N a o N � ° a = U m C a - `a) o a) "" W o y o �U � E > a oo �m ooE m oo •u ° 0 r x o u o 3 J � 'C aE ° = ° a� ` � o `o c (-i id (0 Z a0 C 07 C 0 a CO N N = E Q N N -O Q E EEma) Eo 0 00" 0-16 .‘-r) r 3 w w ° ° a °) o � � �. mN - U N -- 'Oa o) O N U -0 ° "o .n N r o coo W Q m °) c :4 m y m mac ° � o a 3 � % m - N .3 .0 �, U O o 0 C c y > 0 .0 C 0 'O E UN) N aU i0 (� r __ m u) 5 N > vi EE 0 Ct -o 0-.5 u) m 0 E c a) t > • 3 Q) . C H o O 2 '— C C E , '° a y . .0 V °" 0" o .o. :C 0 .- .- a J a o 0 c n c C U N O a 0" a) > m a C U CD O O a) CO m ~ j m N v) O) �• C N c O O = c OU 01 3 ( ;c Z, a r E O co . =o r o s >: m o o C J 3 w ≥.L o 0 a ° ma ~ a) UE aa)) � a) O `-' a) T—iN � '� ESE a`) a) emu 7 N 0/ a N m c r N L -No` E CO r m N y y 0 C E '°' '� O J 0 as a) 20 20 -oo Y >, 3 -- N -0" 0" c E3m 0" o a 0" f mU � N ° ray -ca m -oc �° EZ Emac = 0" 00 ° ocr° -0" m- -02 o O E C N O` f/J N m �_ °- 0)C O N m -O N O J m m y C CO Co O C O C a C E O C m N 1 '0 O p o 0 D > w o d E .2 •m m 0 a) N o C Y C' 3 _ E > O c N C N > 'O .O J J C Ca U E m l0 o m $ N — 0 J Y .� C N N N : O 'E m O C m r y 0) °) O. 2 r : aWi .a m a >i U 0 O C E C O a .X r N 3 2 m - C) N • a '5 H .V OmN Ht pm a E a� m .° C _OU m > N 6 E m QOa) QnE -0Q00a' 0°` mac°) aE > EF) ` 22 T, 0 E � in ~O Q � U � m o m U `o `o � Q E E 1•1 -8H yN m li ma F- o uao G L 0 O a. U AL s S S S S . . . a v ti 0 r f E 0 o. m a) 'S a C C co r ° c c 2 CC N N .4- 3 a .. C a C CO CO m :° 0" 0 a ;0" P 0 CO ...a) 0 V r 0 tag N m C a 0 0 0) m- 0 H t O O o a) m N co E N a 2 2 0 'a E U U w 0 o m m a fA N V n 3 W N o ..- Ore) O _ co Q) N N N N E E Cl E 0 a° d 0 -o E o .�. A 99 J J J F O -O N N > • C N U aj p . , ui a) 76 a _c ca m a) d w ..c E N L "O 92 ' E m f6 '3p °: N a) a) m 'a) ` O a) .C y N J 'E � @ o .c N c c o -o o rn aoi E 3 E ° ° a ; U o c c fV W E N _ o m a° a) D r a E 0•-I g L.) E s- c _rn u -o a) o o a) 0 o a) E Y Y E ° L0 ° N E 0 d E L .L. _C y ≤ p C N N E Z ° `m E y c E ° ° w a N = f° N m �0 30 cc ° L N I o 3-Tziso co n .3o a s >a o E c_ t o a ° O N > N YUNUicti) > -Y I N :Ea' c to N 2 a7r m � i- aa) a cme � � gmo aaO -C v -oa) m �? U J ° C) N Tw O Q) J N E m 3 N E-' U . as z E E a) .c a s °> > r ` ° ° N N C N E .�°° C N > N = > 3 ° N a) -'p a) fa ra L ° .0) .c E I- m ai 3 =0 ° Lu E Ny 't .- y to ai r o` p w e X N E ° -o w > E r N o o) r 0 m m E m o 0 0 ° a y V mC - 1, a) C ao a > ° > E Er � 2E a `o •m ° ow E ,5 o o rr Z. w ° w 2L C p C N N .L. OJ C ° C p w 'L" NC a) N m 0I J .3 'N ._ O E J a) a) c a) W p a N - o o) ' r aE a> Err) -0 ° a ...0 2r° S 3oaoo ° m c l+ N U U .p Oct c V c N co m N N E °'[a i)o N E E a -o a) � ' 3 m a)CD 0 m a) 0) N 0.) '0 N mi (0 o ma a mmc...„, go C .c 0 E a H Et o .S o ° j 0! Z U `o) U U 3 Qr Z •W o dc6 .c, a, • a H a) Q ttr r m s s a sLi a la t+ a) et m L E a E 7 V7 C 0 r+ of bq .w .b C et U b a E H to H U a) co to 6 x E o Cr C) W y r 9 = Inc IL Q Ir 00 d w a, cl, 9 11 m a 3 C 0 o p CO ,3 03 _ 0 COf0 'O C c z a @ o ° co o E a) 0 o c c T 0 t2 .c C -0 . >0a C a = a C E 2 my " C D7 > O D > U .@. O U a U m N 0 L yO C0 GO y 1] O U a 0>ND1 C O -0 C CO o .. 0 0 u) -0 C s_ N m cm CO @ o a o wC CO CL N O C @ L c c a) 0 0 a d n c 0 ie `1 C O @ p) 0 m co L L to C a 2 O u) c J a N � 3 o I- 2 ° E 0 .`.° " m E m °-Y o mac ` = c m - W o-toCD 0 .7-o .c caE .. a`> c c =o me a C7 � .Va L o o N T > U O L "@O y N N ... 'O O U O C V/ ac Zino 2 -8� � .o � � ° E aui 0a ° .0 cc- � � a T E >. E y C C (` @ S] N N C m 0> O m ro.c @ c0 O> 0 U j U Z E � a ° � anE � 3 � E ` Lno o -ooP ° wEc N@ m U@ O J @ O d Y a m -O 0 3 2 V a DT) L 00-V CO N C '0 C .-. 0 ±° °0N m of mo3 . ; @m m � c cEV '3om3 0 c L L a) d -O E c V C T 1] O m U m N t O L co m ≥ m m m a) 0 N (0 C LO ' Dom a� Cm a C .a a) 7 ' .t.. 00 cO = C -0o 13 y .ocot COQ Emav E `� v � � N cn � � -mocoE n > 0 j c t 0@ o L E co a) a U y J 0 N (0 O aj o@ d 2 N a L o E L m C Y (a T v, c a m f/1 C a t > a COm .0 0@ 0 L c- . T ° E 3 0 . .0 m c -- a) to y )0`p0 p mo M J cc 3m -m0 Dom Cooa> =• JL owQ J = m N3UW N 'O ai JC Vi O0 aE yO @O` m ° ' ° -° ate» 00 'a 0 5 � No 2m yE oym o0o0 .o o � S m ° u, 2 0 � 2 m e 0 .- c °� ° `m a�CD ai 4 � E c � E m c yo aN — 3 ymm � 2N °� � ° m ° > OW) d oa� Eo c O (0 3 0 a) a@ 0 a m ;g E O) a) U o c m e 000 0 O . J c ` d m a r.) m m C C > O)... .N m 0 0I N 'Y Co CO J O = '` C y (5 - OE -O OC r C C y LL Co C O) Z 0 '°O C co 0 a) @ C 3 m ad@C .mCsca ° Yc Eaw 0DDa> 3 � mrnmoa� c •- ° E °) 2a >, 00 ° aaara -aaa)) 2 ° x ° aoao ° @oc> oom0a m a) • y a � Spoa - o .- ou) o)a cN CD 0 = ELco . d o u_ Dom a E c o. C a) O .C 2 u) U U L a) . 2 0 C1. y A > O 0 j OH y > w c L. E ED- U OU • E co 'o O a 0 2 (n c S S a . a` v C 0 v y m m co E C- L .O 0 y 3 c m w @ 0 c!) as 0 0 _ '� m o o ti :g 5 a o -120 a .0 c 0 C co cc) CO CP Dp 'm.' m L 0 m 0 m C L 0) "O @ m 2 L i. d N cm 0 d E 3 m 2- CU L L a) 7, o m 2 a r m o a a> a 03 oc `� a) N O U V LL T2 N R C) 0 a D 'I V a L L J m L J - o ° Om L o0- N 9 y C 0 0 a) O a E °f 0 fah. co m 2 N m 0 co y r o :0 a) W N gem cg.), CO C U) N ,_ 'G O 7 o -C N C O y iV •+ 7 C O O O 0 0 12 0 0 O U 7 a) r a) 9 N lU9 N a ° N m N 'O • it Q O; , y a a E 0 ca-00 Eo a P_' °D a) of N m c , $ t 2 2 9 8 E O a°`1 -0 'a a F o O O S a0 U O a) F V 2O5 'o ' c a) o a C C C 0 a) a) 3 'y -O N N L co • -° ° d ° 3 a) - v A -0 `t' E000)-0 N43U � O '°03N � 2 ° E ( NY a �,'3 U n C ° m O ° O 7) -O a-° C a) 0 a1 0 En c o co a o O d aO -O d 0 -, -O a 0 O)'C O1 C C .O O n 'O W N - C • E � oc � o ° c ° '3m � a3 >. amooEw mt air O N Nc -0 in v ° `� •oc m ° °� saaa coc 5Z aoia °' ooc Va -oo i-, c°— a�Om � � 0 ≥ may :≥ � aa4= '-.0_ ° _`my ao o▪ coo —co" c c -o3 — o °> s 2m m ° � co3 � a Y °-� ° Ou, ` � cal O 3E EE in O) @ c (a L ° O a) o g o n 3 r O C ° O O a) 8c .—> a 3 O .c „Nato' 3 O) 0 C y m .O O aas C oc O 760 ' m 32 >,O `ooEc°a23o c = OO .0012 ., a) O 7 O O a1 U C W a t7 O a) o a/ N 0 '_ y 0000 EO8N NUo ° L ° o = OCEO .o 0 mp a3 O N . St) 25 ,9-. 0 � C ° o) Nom av ° 3 ° ° ay3m .E 2 (Do CO a) j ` u, a O ?i . a) n .N- "O O U ° 2 L .0 d w0, > 0 ° c co o � o mad d 'co m co @ = . oo 'm° ca °)^y = 5., cc o) ' E U) a1 c0 aJ 0 3 LO O -° N O co E 45 CD O° a) ° O@ U -°O E L ° E cf'C L o 0 N J L a) 'O C 0 r2.. o a) .o ° a) 0 0 0 7`) ° O) 0 O a) O m @ 3 0 a a c E .0c1) 0 .— ,1) D o O o off : o �no Or- CO w a 2_ v ° c a o nu)m ¢ L L o ° o > E o w ob o m E o N m c � ,63 ` `- o ___O 3 'o NLrna) .° = N00tEL0 . yc ` wmc O — ;o cacti d a co, m � a) ' as- ° m 3 Ea - O a � _C 0 W co we ° c aci uy a) oc _ O pi .0 ° (mace oas — cnc � p a ELm c : E a c o. 0 'EO oca 0a) ° a) c o23C2O EEp co) do a) •' CO O mO) U ° > w 'O ° O -oo Ec .- 7' mo)� � 0 c Ea a • 0 ≥ O) Q vt o a n z z O° c .'O c U N 0 a) 0 -° C 'O c L 5 N N ° 7°a t t aaoo r m o 'm co c3) E � � °o 'o ° ap � aE o m a � 2 s ama` ca) mn2 OoO23CDo2 7°) CCE a 0 V CO y V en co o a L N a c ra E oi co E d c u up 2 c o o d m E v 'C LL O 0) )a 0 .0 V .' a .. r " Eo ° c o 0) N x E v W in C" 7 c N W _ 7 c 0 K 0 LL Q 0o N E • -. No c a a F- m 'O L N m • o o O O >E u 2 o N m ti m 0 2 m O_ L-. ` O L N r o o w 2 y a) E m C_ C a m CD a 3 N m ELY a) a) > O U a toilet a N V N N coU N U) .r a) Du) .3 Cl J Z m a o E U j y E . N 2 m C N U C 3 O O C .O ,,, L O 7 -o > E w o `m 5 E m m . Nom .O F co I.n = N .O. 0 0/ N C 'OE O c (a _mX 3O• rON N W o E o o y � c -1,3 E c o amo o J c m.. U .O m >, O J m > 0)y a o — O m ° o Qw oNL E o - 0N � U '- COo a L o c� E J c Ec m m E C m O o O E L U l m O) a a) c0 O (p '00 E N rn .~O. 0.. =_ t ≤ >, C E Nn to N Z c c o o aci `c-o c 3 ° 3 3 O- c a� E " m m a r o_ M Lo EE ° 4 � � ` a msm • o m o 0. c c .Lo. 3 m 0)) a C.) V m m ° coo a ~ 5 o• E Y co i ° Boa •N o � � � c '� c a; ma°i c co _m m m m o a o= To N-rEoo) Dm0 E E d a o o o o m U c o > > p m J a) oil) m E C 3 0 _ a) c c CO -O CO m o CO L . _ m n y c " E z J E m � m r woo a o m co m = >. 3 = a O Dow -o .a) m � = � c � � � � �° a o m 3 X 0 '3 � � c o � 0 ui r o 3 .a � ≥ m � n o = a m a E m a)CD 0 0 O CO ao) m c n a) as o o u r -of>., 0 = m o n o a > U > E t _c c En co r a M U E N m c oU o c c a .. 0 .O aa) ca) 'o o $ 2Lma_o) coa`) E -- a - V Uc ci to V u a) 0 CO O co L C V o v a a C C L O O Q O `) c o j ow O CD O t A C5 III e30 Ocmc ° mymmE "pNUNam rn °) m3 `oFwoa > c E al C m t`0 r r C ' O 2 N u) 'O 3 C o O d U N • a3 o ma) oo � > o = mm m -o3NrE :° E rn:J n _ in in '- a c , m > � rCCZUrnsi UU3Fo- 3 ° mQaZwo0 n0.c0 aa) .0 0 � en 1 C t t L .) 1 a) J EIy '5 O o c o "o o a cl- c - " - - - " OEm � w2aaoo a` o a) v t" y 0 CD A E E d r a N C (1 CO d o O at A OD O w a T � vm a o V LL cd o ` . a) E t m iu r' u ti 0 a d E w o II. m C IIco O W y0 C O W m p) am) V C o a c LLa el • r ao o m a; 2 E fel a i- E-, a) Y N _ N 'O c .L.. 0 C r C • d ", = ti m a) 2 -00 :° 3 C CD -O O C C p N O C C E U c — L 'o a to C co '— .c c °)'N a) a) o to a) q c •— 3 r U N N E a a ° C U a N u 2 .S a) -o N co o O o c . '3 3 E o0) .C > 2 a c m -o a c3i a o a'� 2 '> a) °- A o) � � p .c .§ n° .9- `o � m Yoc -No °3N -o � a ° am a) O a) Yo N a-° O w ` C Lon a) N 0 U _ C J y 2 to N N-o co o aci 3 E .° m o m c ° N co -0 m - — m E m o t Jr c c N LT-1 3 a) N ,_ 00 L _N cp N co N C O > N 0 > p)$ 0 a) c N 0 .L-, c J X .L0, _J .J. a 0 °- X N 2 N a) y .N. c C vafj N E L L L ` a N o � co � . $ a U . c Jcavim2 ' toyer L l3) U ° N U W U J a) 2' o o L O C co 3 a O) C 2 L w 3 N a) Sou U N :2 N N .. U -O a) a O E L o y — U 0 a) c U) _ 2 C c y -O N > 'C C - 0 - -0 Y w N C N > N a > L to to C c 2 2 > J to la co 0 0 t0 N U J J 0 2 a L 0 J O '= al.-- E C -0 C U CD N C N 2 c it •a)• N Y .L. N (o N w j V 0 0' ax) c E a) m 2 O 2 L N 2 N CO 0 o .- a) w a O U c 3 C a) a) c 0U p 'y 0U O J N O y C >O o ° En cif) > co -j c a °` N N "O C O)C _ow N o co N N - rO 0 '> cam C = a) o a To L J p >. > J V N a 0 C C 2 3 to 0 J N ia N O t9 O) N E N U -0 w L 'N ° r0 O = a) C a) a ° > N 0)=- V C > > N N -o p) co -o to '" - E '- Na) N `Oa) 0 c cam 3 c — Cc taoca3oN ._ � co C N y y ` c 'a y U co 0) N O - a C y N N Y a _ (aL c . o > 0 ° - N c wi o) --0o m a V) --oo C C a woo) J N 2 J m N ? o N y o '> :N C N C to C > d to 2 La c 0 C c y N o O a) .- N U c > a(V ._O. 0.C co O c 0 'm 0 = 0 c a O - a) m O p L m -o ≤ O O N co O to W co co a) of co 2 0 a) y O N O) E E N U 2 _ -° — .a). C O f/) C p_ a) J w E -O U y C _ c r a) C to o) N 3 N O a) u, a) O J C J V O tS = O to coo a J to "O .O = J a) o)To co .c O coon.. 0 J 2 y L a) 0) 00a) 0 a - T, ao a " @ co c ° E ` a S . Smo) 0Ja°)0 -022 wN -o.3 ° o °rn C C C a) La - -c oocc 3 E � 2 E � 2c m a ow y a a i m aNt c q o .o °c) c N 3 ->o o � m • m m u o '3 °' m o m -° t o c a) `) > E w w a) °) c E m 1:D' o 'C - ••o) o o) oa c) o) o J a ` .°-)5 =i a) o` 0) L'.' C '� 3 r c C vi m m w m t E4 • L y � � � a22 � � owma � � 2a aato � � wa aaE ° a ill a= c -0 Ca i) m p d a a a . a s °) o 0 :Ea5 a) m E EL -o 2 v 0 ° oa) 2 oz 3 m a - ) c 1 O N C 0 A o c co- E ° c N c E C � o c a - a 0 a a co c '0 -0-o m 0 0 CO C.1) a s o 0 CO 3 0 o Ntp � t!i a) `? 3 orn 1+ 0 C 3 co To -0 N .@ N -O ca 0 > .N o, ova) to o ` 00 L C 0) • U N U .N.- t0 0 fi+ L •L _co - C N 2 U 1G O 0 P)c .C N c a) C 'C U C C C - o N N c O O c 0 G � N 'O0J2N aE oo cE 7 al 0a ea 3 7000 p E 0 aa)) t 2 c E -O = a) c) 0 'c C U Y 0.) N 0- N to c O N w b C ° C ° O U '0 (a- C E N -O N N L c 'O a t) ° V) a -O () Iti 0 .L.. J c 0 N .— N N a) •O — J to <I co 22 `O c) C0) 0 (1)N N O O .N. Oc -0 N c -C(rj to N X a U 'y 2 ._ a) to aa. -0LL a) a) O O c m J 0 'Nd E 'o o � ° Ee as- as w2c > > � o .C aa' o- Eco0 .C CO 0mo co 322 O Cr al N Y ° N c C a) co to N W w c a J O J 0 ° c O m a) .` O) y O c O 10 0 m - a > _• E 2 'C = m t .. m ° z y E c E p 7 66 2 -C Eay) E -c EaciN o � C E = 2 m it cc aA a) To a 0o °? y co co 0i) 0o) c 20 CD •.-- j • ,a; o o 0)-0 D o m 2 a) s to a) 0 o)� t w o � m IT", L5 oc oc -o e:a R > 2a) ° 2w -c3 ca3FL- 8)3 (082 F ` C • o U a' ca a a C N x ° Jo -7, com E o � a�i '° aa) n N C JD ° U O O U .L. 4.) U N 30 -0EZO a � •m a y o a .o No a, o ° y a • E m c E a� 0U cu co L = : 'O ca 0 6 0 C � 4 tea' a�a _c -3 Loa.' ax' .0 m0i m ° E N W o nE 3 Z r E 0 aci E D -J0 0 I-ry-� o O.C U N � aJ C N � N N X01 `1 a o U O U ° C N E N O C u�j 2 E o O .E E O Q — c o E0 0' c u 0 .E m > a Q .CO a p 'O a.) a) J C O' -O C — 2 o na> ° J 0000° in E 0 coop a•• c o' m 3 < La J N CD .C — l0 a) O' co N N H C C N ° 7. co — C n J -0 O` 0. O t-51-1- 00 c U .c N N a' 3 p E C CD .N .° t Q ° N O w >,,- U N a3 O f N w L N p -o -o N 0 n m E _ a o .T r y ooi o o .n Cl) u�j LL c '00 Q O N n m 'O O ` 0 -0 (0 N ac 0 m E CD `-' w m o ° a m . CO 0 c m -o N 0 0 y 0 0 2 N a a2 > 'O E ` = is U CO C w 3 m -0 = w E .s0. J m = ° 3 - uoi = 2 2Jo and ° a c >. o ,_ o N 3 N E a co- c 0 D C C C y = U v n ° N 0 C U O C = E > -0 0 'p c73E > E ' a3 J N `° ' N N O .o N ul t C 0 J O JO N - 3 N a N 2 0 — 'mw ENo Jacm o ° x0 '- 0 � � d m a C N N N .t a" 0 L a w 4' di, p E 0 co `' E c 0 c E c 73 N 0 N O O {0 N U N w N C C CA C >.D C C L.. co co C -O co N N 'O W C O 0 N ° > . O 'O' O a' C n C c .p V ° C O '� a (0 ? a co o O O O CO .O p f`0 E E 0 � op " U 0 o m � p 0)1- .@ ` N3 o � • off@a�0im y � C0fl0ia Q. 0�im mLoL _mo =° o � � E� N �° EUmaUw � wc UO � `mUm � UQad3 � � • a C t -° cto o a. 2 -oo m . . . . . . O a a cc c_ to f0 t L 5 t- a a 0 U cn 0 o in o in a'f ° 0 It r a' EC a o a o a 0 a aa) 3 'n o0 C N U N J It = O ° ° C co N U 00 0 c O _2 CA .(1 ° a CA C O N C U H 4.12 N 0 a E 0 d m a C c r N N b acu- mZioLw E o Z j 0 : E 0i a' C 0 -0 = O 0m O um = 0 a u) INW N = - co ° a) .z 0 J N a1 N •— N .O' O U C J w a N 0 0o O N `O LL Q O1 8 13- r 0 m 22 cu 0 > N 2 N • 00 d C > '0 p_' aJ N 4" > < 1 O Z Q It a x ao ? CO' ZE H U _c 'N - C co T0 F- 0 •o a o m ° ° (0) to ') ° m E ° c m a o U 3 p o >, E c m o >--1,c -0 Q C 0 — C 0 0 0 - ,- N c o 0 m co.> m o m - - Q E c w c ° OO CD aaocnN ° 'vom� E � a ° .0— m 000r crn((/�� a ° oE � o .� N ° $ m N -o i- c fl qCr) o 0 4 1 •C C m b- c m C E o 0 a) o m o 1- p U N a fo 0 0 x a p N 0 a) '5 0 o U 0 y N o 'o a W o 5, a a) U U c 0 0) ccoo co u0i U `o C U d= 0 C C x o ovaam .o ° ooa ° Saoo ° 3 ov'E _O -= N = V)• y N ` ° C C A• O N aa)i ccoo = d o aa)i o C 0. E ` 3 .� pY J. O stn > c � � amp (O 'V O .c C _ Q ,_ O o .m. C J to a a 0 0 -00 • N 0 .m. > _0 ,- U oo 'Eao 0 ca) x ET.: `mmm u � 0 Or 0) o c 0 0 C N a' y a O a-0 -00 N a)a O N o 3 .L.. c a) 0 3 -c c 0 m _ c 3 C m u`o) E -0 '9Ua ° Y o c a" m � CO 0 o- c o $ ata O o U a�T, aC) co ° to ° E U E 0) J a3) a U p 0 J c U J .c E 0 C C a E — m -c C ro 4=• E = sing m o).' O .° °)o) ° E — c o �m a pLy, ac -o cyc 3 a� co m a m E O0 H m m 0 -0 C N 0 a) U a C O) m 0 ° 0 0 0 ` 0 a c m a � maC > CmN >, U y00 . 0L 2m - U 0 0 095 a 0) 03 0 0 . y J _ 2 a 0 c ~O O 'oo o a) J 0 a o ca= a ac) O.o N L C 3 c o c o N . L O ° O m a O O a m a N vi a) Jo a'a-> a) -0 o ton m a C m 0 ° o w 0 -co C J O y 0 a) m i f0n 0t ° U p O C N 2 ., a 4-i 0 0C a)al 0 al L > C w C ` a.` (5 C 0o c 0 C L 3 0) 0 0 = 00r- 0 U 0 .00 0 O N 'C 0 p a -0 O a) 0 ° 3 0 03 c of 4..- 006) C0 o 03 0 a) 0 - > 0 o ° o m ° m al 0 al = m `o_ to 0 ® c a; •.> a '° to .c 0 E ,Ow .- U 0) a C = d — 2 �A.. > 3 c ° o a ° r o N T T T c H m 3 - 2 O c ._ c m c 3 6 mn co n .c m m m co -ooO � ° m c c E N o m '00 m J O) ` d c w .... C m .0 y (n o 0 0 a, m a ! Ec c m -oo000 -° Ja) U 0300 n 'b ° m _ ca) acoc0 ° o ° > mc) 0oTc « com20c Y • co 0) 0 0 U ° 0 J '0 42 > C0 m C a V a) co L L L j = -° U) -- O U 'o co - U Cr 2 O m m a m 0 0 > a F-- to o• 32b .° oa� 3aa)) o) a2 - 0amw QiOacow 'o a` d RI L aui o N E 3N > > a a) t CO a ?gym o E E E '" 7 @ L ' E 0 m w (n u 0,- o .b o a"3 C 0 0 v o•— `r) a O y ° o d 0 0 a el -LO O T O m c7) be0.) O ''0 O to y a"y" c o C 0 CD 0 o •, D 0 t`' 0 L = m a s m C O)"' a 2 m m a o o m 0 N 0) 0 J L ° co � ion.- £ 3a mo U 3 03 L 0 CO C 'J ea w a . > 0 0 � c .03E 3 o c E O E a)0 L T a E m o• u u 0 u 0 m 12 U Q J U c• C 0 co L . a 0 p w 0 0 m O. 3 x > y y '0 O CD C 03c o N 00 a to ma co W y m o 000 C = ` 0 a 0 N 7 O O m to O d a 0 w O) o L a C o 0) c 0 a M a .c 0 0 2 - 03 0 iia) a) O 000 p _ too 3 C < Q D o 'V .N-0 m ° i) c o CO o Q a0 0 ~ N v U U a • O all DID .00 .- 00 Em m m 0 co m gm ,_ 0 L t w o � rn ° — ti CL c aL � ea a a OoEOEa - o x uoi3a a) 0 E • = 0 a m 'a -o Z' � � C O N LL C co =c° E C o)� E — 0. o � a3i co 0 0 C 0G a) m mm � 0) r C0O 00 CO 0 m 2 E a � � a a� ma m t a) mom 0 a , co ° 22 'o mO a) -.5 co m as0oo 2 > O L O O N in C/1 A L N w 2 C V `O N > N aQ CO N N co c N W co 0 a -o N c - o U) c o O LL') y a m ._c O OQ N c- H ONo 2s OCOa) O O -o E E `C w U j a) O U N N Y N j y N N N o Z. O` O e oa d0 o � La 0ocnOm '0c �c@o5 > o _ E a ) 2 c o00aio0c2coo � � ° °a � = a3cn 0 °Tr ,oU m _ U m N m COO L - t O m 3 U o N ca NN c o O -0nz O Q mm m ° 0 `m m CD _ cc 00 0 y = = yUi o O c -o E n 3 a 0 = 0 3 3 mcn aNn ca) cccco om � � aOiNw u, y� (� a� 17 a — E o c a) o cv a E (D ‘-' C 2' � � � oc° � >, om m � ymOUw y a m w ij N c 'do — m CO -oa) N > >. No >00 -° 32 °) - 2To -° cow m � C _c o0 N m C nj C > .N H .> p N J N f° N 'o 'C N N d O N C L O N O O N O O N m � N = O O E a a LOi .r.) •§ .o ccmCO 0U -, m � EOm � `. 0y ca Ih a N p ° O N U y cocci) coL T co co C _ co 0 m yo .0 0 a° —0 a) E 3 c E 0 cn2 J `o CD c CD CD U 0p QW � � uni - ammo - EeEom2 o N -- o " O CU r, ; WOa cNN1 V 0 CT 47.1 to cy5c > ccipo � ccnyoo or0 � w5 o0 9 pi " cn2o 003 SUU � � $ m `m y '0 �= wamiw0n `= 2 c co i_. m o N 0 O c O Y O C O C _c U C O O = CL - 0. 0E )"O E •E co ≥ c — c3 00o E .o o2 mm UU T d • a; O 0 O Y N m 0 a' ..... O N C 0 N -0 C O N l U -O 0 a '5 m 0E00 mo0_ � 2 � 2 oo)� wEQc—° momma oo. EY J' N • y O _o c O D ° 3 o C .. Tr, o L U E U — C ≥ o N m C r ac O � 0 > — a0000-50 aO ° _ 0. 0 N1a o o a •_—_ co w0 "C . Q coUZO V- a 2 (O a) aECU (OWI- a co a` a to b co 5 0. E 0 cn C O 4s r ft OD +. 11.4 .C C 0 a 0 A 6 9 N 3 H c c 0 a O s E w o Pr a) • 10 N N " w III - O 0 �o 3 H f c j to N IL < 3 0 CIO � O CU 21) N : L id b a I [—, _ t .O N c a5 o m o -p O p .a7.. co c w0 C ° c > • 0 (n .0.. O — C O C co > O T O O y N Coo U 'p 4 ° C E O 0 y co c a y o . = ° a� _in y T aa' cm ` - o . ® EE 5 , o c ° o w E E 0 D a a' T N > o ° n aa)io =0 ° accnne--dp = 0 - envoi � o _oW cpC OO 2- 'cc E .- N ~ C C O J N d N .O N U N O C ? N 'O N �--7 >,N C O O w C C O 'p �-r 'O ` N d L — _O J O Q ._' O Es O J w CO J coy O U Of C '!' W n a Q N U o'O $ a o E m C re O .o N 2 E m a n t x c Ell ) L '= N o1 (n co'ui' LL1 — v' _c coN "p ' H -° 'p 0 O E La m °`o y E >,:o :It) -o a Eoi = E ( m lilac mcavi ° o co s ac— ° N 0 'Op O d co N U O = U (NO to a— J O Y CO L -o d 'O -p co E o N a, X N a_. Sa O d co — o� � O oc � oo ago Nwuc oi >.� a) ,- co O _c V — - o o '- a) '- L c o l d 2 a) ' 2 E '5cw as (avi— nw > CU m - na amTo 'co co P2 N 12, 2 L o -0 co ° (0 O a) r U C � ` � U a1O J co E E a .- ° O a3 'p (o a — U O5 (0 co V U w c a) rz,c a > a C aa, T 2 m - a O �: > 2 a'o (o "i N o = U E c m N o c - n o 0 a N (n o c .L- j C Q` d -p3 (000mo co o > co oc Emp-JV? E U : Cr¢ E > Ea ppo vii m d Ud co `O (n a C ) LT (n 2 d o o t co E E •:.t.O— 'co > r 0 2 ,Ti 2 N CO V a > O Q O v X 'C a U cO L O ≥ C .� a7 U O O)17) O d O co 21 U E N, O U a C C (6 O C U C12 4= d O O I- .L, C C Y c a) d o ≤ Y ca ` d N N = to N rO U O c w 0 °C a`> aa'i E Ea ° o E ca .- E cH = Y c 2c -a 3 c i- t)) C co U C = .00 a N _O J O J@ O O 0 s a) if (a U O y d o au > O Cp� C O -0OC ' a< TooO co -O Nt C � � - OCdOO E J O ≥ O J U O 0 J a p O > CO "p O w r CO a 'O (o U C E y s E m O a C a p N N p U C C U) d. • o C d a7 O (n F ,C co o p M F- O of C 2 .N J O E ao 'a d oco �, Ooi .— m � 0 'CO -pr op -0d 0 .• tom` :- Y U co C L O - O Ea) FO 'E U - a U m ≤ Q O p U J C D C y E t y vaa a U O °� m ¢ (°n Q J _ 1- E a c1°v �?.C 2 V-O D3 D3 a ccoo y m a 1 , et N E a 7 GA C O 0 of OD ... .a C of Q-• V a3 a 8 In N U C O cO 0 E (n o P. d N CO N , 0 W y 3 m is al y 0 C 3 IX 3 LL Q T J I- O CO d 9 • CU � CO a a I p d a) • 0 V a _ al 4 a) a) al 3 o > Jr.O N O ta C N ° U a� a -°ca> o rO@o aNi c32 a r, a co C "O .O C V O E N W W ._ Cu c o 5 m a) o -° Cu ai U V a c , '.. _ No gaa)) a orn Cu ' N N N o a`)" 'a c°� (J� c r CO a> C N - O U L 'O Nil N a mr J ` O) i_ 0 CO C C (YC0 (a N O` rs O a) no 'p - O = > L —c o C L .T' C -co Y aa> '5 ,L- $ O 2 n._ c m .. CD m -� C C O C 3 a L -° >i O N CM 4- (7) '5 N O E O .m C O . �O C r N p f0 -00 m C '3 O co a) c 2 �/ 5 J '00 Cu° a) (y O l s c C L @ N f0 °' /� 17) N O E 8 N con ._ca V= N °) a O2 (c0mC 0 aJ Tao CNV - O O103 a ° CO 01 • p Cu `p) O O o j m n N p a> C O C .E w C E > con O N "O N N (tea C@ mEa>-C - >, '� — o) " CD CO mL to'42 Ewoo° E ° c o ti ._. CEO mY > *- 3 1 ECU O 1O m 0 c N N 0 N aa)) 3 .o-• a - ° CO 00 0 j a 0 a c _ r E a = .;moo a� � c c O W c o m � v+ d L E J o y roc = D O `. a) N — woo -6 a> a) d O L 000 - C E 'y W a N (0 O -) a) N a N 2 O U N O >� E 3 N LB O` .� 2 `) C L a) O c It C -O O D C 00, 0 C O N W a Y J -O "° .c j (0 C cu we 2 as co o 3 ca Ca $ � (n m c � E 0 °- w =0 CO CD � u m 2 a c O '.,o:c 0 N ° - .. o N m r N 3 .- O o> ° - ° m - - 92 a)a) m ao E o Y -o `1 J a) O)Lj U y C 3 N 3 a N Cu �= a C O am ; J C a a) > .0c w- .- a f0 "O N Ul C N c co >. a) a O' N CAN as U N N 2 N r C) -3 C O a) N a aacP0fo .c ccm c a)• m cm — 4 1E m • Cc2 .8a0 0o EcE mfna> c a) at> 3 rf0 acaa) a JcmJ0 o 0) ac ° a Eo o •o E —O to a) y E � N 0I=° `N-o "NO N N N U C CO E °U a N J °U C U .E C m N > m Z t — o '° — C of a) O ° O Q o a < o < i 2, W = aLL Z 4EUa) a cflo co m t _E — a o ° C p o 7 c N o) cn Cu a`) c c 0 S C N D • N a T 0 O N N to = N a N N o N � co co 0) -p E a -O ,/, L_ a) @ a d co a E N cc 0 a) .0 U N N V N O Ya) y O CO tit) b r m i> c y N -0 Q+ a> O O co a) N H r ° O N Cu ° ° a7 O °- a CD O C 3 C N a) a) (d o a o a> ° N ≥ > E m E g m N T Cu ® a) 0 '�' « 2c ® co cU N 'oj O Cr m U °- a`) .-- a) m a Us) M § C To -O- N L ELI) W N O d 'O 'O O Q N 'O E m c 'o !0 co N O ° a) fA N O 3 a) ° iiQ _ 3 ° m > 9 a) To YE • W .N. C L al 4-0 ) O w o W H n C N T+ "O F a a° �p N U a' O O C N 0 o C O N o c6 nt a a H m w U) IL H t Z 2 O T 0 ,.., >. O -p -° O ... O 4O CO ° N O N T_ U C co O 0 O O 'O N O O N • q C C C O ° � N C ..T. a) ` O N 0 N D y •N CO to J a) a) (0 ° C (1) (445. C ... O c V N -O CO J "O D0 CO :ES = NN " _ ioa3 = ma La 2O Na) > 0 -p N OU J co 0 > 0 mC op) ° N N N CO tT a) O c O O C J N d 0 Ea) y O N L N D O . C O = O. in LA c0E >, c (OwCO 'Oo)L .._63 3mc>iy ' C � i3 N W ° c C c -o c m c c 2 N t I.°? y a) cO.+ `) '3 _ aNi H N O) > O Ca) J p -O a) O) ° a) L X.. 0 0 0 0 m H O c 0 C > 'O r C O a 0 a ° 3 C - N CD 0) oE . _ O a) E 'D N O N N E• .0 y 0 N O O N O Ca C r p o m Z 3000 0 Com Loa -Oa CuEOO .- � -0Z0CD c .0 N � O ? ?2FO c > O N a ((it) o ° (0 U U O a E) d E N a) N N (0 N 0 L C 0) c N O a E o 0 ° ° � ,a 3 m a O-I- o E O Qa a s 01 N (0 ° C U N (6 W 0o00- 0 � O 0 ca C) mm.c v °E-w � :° " � a.' 5-C-C — ° a - N00 c O c O a •2 C _ c o 0 3 c E — 2.'7) 2 , ° o � F JOEY E .EOva,oEt � 2 't 2 'cc N _ 3y c '5 c ° Z. = 2, E Z C a «) ai aaa)i � °% ¢ -O � y. N O O 2 a o O a) ,,_2 -O 0 c w0 J V N .O-C N Vi c u0i 0 N O N (0 U NVl CON E ° C W a O O (0 O. C .. 0) N N (0 a y a 0 O 0 N y I- O) N O N r C N 0) ._ O E C U . N J N c 0 E O C 0 0 O ° ca A N U D ._ N d a7 N L O r y6 > l0 YO .. a l0 O 0 U N N O D C u' o N O o ~ ° N p N c b m a O) N a) 0 N L N y - N T.) c a) J 0 r a) U L y J c t E g a p U U ... O rnm E E O 2 Nam arm o m ° E E c Un a.,J`' 0 0 i+ N .`. p. O J o a N co O N 0) @ ° L a) E O m "O co C E — C7 c 0 ° N ry c E V o a a) c E C a p r O N N m d p p y`°.. O N a) L O D) O c0 -O r d) f6 too p C N N �_ ° W O0aa) �' E yU a) °) p) aNEo o � >,� ° TNo ° o � E c "Eav c o U � c � owO ° p = NC far ° t°- ar _ ° o -O >.. o DZ a ° a cJ o`_ yam ° ° m �mno E W N U w N L H a) x c C 0 ay a) E O o O) c - T U T 0 tT_ o) H N a) J y U d u) a) 'O coN « U O a a) m O d > %- ° a a ° 0 !0 a o 'o V d N co co N d mn N _ a 0 N to f N (a L L d 3 c a co c c c0 O a) L N Y N G C > J O. U O O N mr0 O1 E y tt r = C O C co >I' C Oct N O 0 x U 0 a N C 'O t9 g 0 0) 0 .0.. a a 172 O N 0 _U 0 O C O 0 a N J a ° N ra c c g 0 co 0 ai co c0i 4O O 'p N r A, ° 3 m O a E N 0 ,-+ 0 m N co C E a) E N o co �" o 4 ° ' o O CO TN .) 7 ,_ 0 O O C b O. a) Cam O aN Ec r E co o m >,-0 o N `o CI) 14- o 0.1 0 E ≥ a 9 'Co m0 C0o y lV 0 p 0 y C U a _ 0 a W H o a0 c c) I- 0) 0 0 3 ° a.- a V a 0 ._ O . RI 7 K as 0) ¢ �_ w we a aCO lLQ rn Nc mm C00) m ( r J O N N p) 0 N N a co N Ell -O U > V U C N 0 0 0 E • .u 0 ° O Q W m0 .- 0000- 00 C -p -. A L C O wJ C .0 L N .c A aw3z0 a ¢ 0CEI- 21H � F _ di E in • o o C C N N C m m U O 0) C m '0 O L L -0 N C a) d .0 "O ci C a m ≥ aa)i m a 0 m a) m m p N 0 m ca a L '? a) 0 a) > N E E a a) m co a O N N 0a) N .L.. co N 0 o o '0 0 o N 0 C coN E L L D U O N N N � m � °- cc_)c 3Z E = a) 2 & 002 a) 0 N O C 0 '00 >. N N 7,-, a) co 2 0 - C a 'y N W '` c < '� o � N co 0 C° aa)i a0 m ? m ; am 03 11 N p . 0 N > N 0 m c T)G C1 m y C 0 U O co C um E � � m .- ° °' c Nrn O o)�w vi c Cl-co .Sm m ° ua) � > Emm � o 0 e o .EvY vmEO moE � dam EEo .� oac `m ° Z - ti N m y or - > vYca� Lmo � � C N C a E m 0 ^ 0 0 m 0 O) E c -O CO m U ' a CO -co .> 0 m .0. c o c 0 N `O a) c -0ODD N a E yT o > CD > 0CD ° po O C C '° 0 0 .C ( 0 a) m C V > co O C L. V 0 °j N 0 '° = $ c CD c ui ? L3 ° ° � ° yd ?�Qo- rLn m �aL CO m o mN � w 2E EY � � � � aaa� m 'v a) c c o cm aia NE mE00oi `V - a- 0 o a fl E E 0 E � ° a a�i --0 o y p-- y ino o. aci m o c aa)i o N Y 3 Co Q N N 2 -L° a CD !A J m Cr"'N > ≥ "C m L. To ° c � ° Cc 32 nu, mE -`o = ° 7 N 0 N c 0 2 a 0 m N 0 '3 a) ma O O `0 - O U c O ' a) .. 0I O 0 O 0 c 0 La) 0 ' 'O 0 m 0 O U N ..... ` N a) C L N '0 V CD Q 0 C V) = -0 N 0 O Ccp. .a > 0) nc mo ° 3Eac) 2 2N .5n30amiomoN0 .-m .? '0 ) N C 0 m >. CD u) m 0 N @ 0 N 0 N m E -0 o co 0 U D. C O r. m `m 2 m ° o a c E �° 3 0 0 O c ( ui E > c m ` a`) o 5 E . a c 1.7., m m O• N C 0 0 0 0E E CO M 11) N a) E a0) @ c 7:, 0 0 a 'C d " i_ NN ° d aN o t0i) 0 ` o) � = COt � c E3mo ° c, ,.cop EN • ;. w 00 Y °- a EDUDN � 'EznEHEa) NN �a �aaNHa > tao ('. L • 0 N G 0 a) O O Q N 0 'O o o d 0 0 U O r Z a a a M ?_ C N O c c a a V aa i In N b R N Y aL E C r C O m E O L '- O C ad a) O 0)" a O X mN °) E ' a) o a) J .0. m c o y E _a c .° a) 0 A = coca m .v tIA comY > 1° 02 _ y -2 L N N N O ° c C N E N U C CO 0 0 o EY -o o E ° co U E 00 N t 0 > 3 a) 'C '- N CO N 0 CO 0 (0 5 v j C) N 0 _ O 11 N O C Y c C c ).y 3 ... m U m 0 -0 0 •0 a > 0C aEs oai � E O0 � �° ma3 >a. gr L m '- CO N ` N .0 0 - a N N .L. WN o Qm00t 'oE0 C -o a a i0 0) 0 O 2rna c ,- 0 cn m O " o LL Q a' w 0 0 O O y U • cO m e, 20020 —ova .-2a In co a a m U 0 0 -, m C C "O C m to a) '_' L O .CmN oa - 0aa) R a 0 Hia U or m 0 -o 2 \ \ ) _ co _ 0 = 2 : « \ - _ _ ) E 0 If 1/ / \ - -co 2 tsii a) \ \ ) \ \\ \ \ \ \ ) . 0 ( � \ ) - 2 - ! , - - - co LOo - - 'es &k - ! \ 76 % f : _ $ ) ID - $ \ 2 § ) ( k ® _ \ o & 2 § / k ) ! f ( ® ( = a ; Eo a 0 \ 7 ) ( ) `� { } � ) / ) / j \ \ CD - - 2 c la 2..5 _, > .— o -5, 8 cm co » � _ � � _ \ # k Ec \ ( = E7 « / ! ) / k0 ) ] & - k \t { \ } \ \ ( _ kojr,E ! Et coo ) § � ) = 0t § - 2 - $ { k § ( ) k � ! ® § t § » 2 3 ) - - ` � E ° - W0 � 2 ) a00 •C W Wr00 \� eEfm : = § � wDD O = ci = G = = u = = = O3 \ 2 - - - < a - - - - f - - - - - - - - - - / . / inCL o. E 2 j / 3 ] SS el ) f $ U) N ° 00 UJ7 co a U LEJ \ / / S 4 Y • _ci o C0CD o a L To 0 N CO C 0 CO - O C v o)a O -p - a) m a CoN N -o 'O CO _m w T 03 -° _ a -, c a) W 3 co a p ° ° O E E N a c E c 'c m u, v; vi O E U O L E T C N ° O C J V CC0 0 p c °) C N . �. • C -O V a Co i E c m a c T .p O -O 7 CO JC0 = a) O N6:7) a) • m ° E Q co y 0) m N m o C 3 E m C 2 o aE) vi °pS) aa) 5y co p a) ('n r «� ° m E m C `ry y t N N L t o o z.. o c) c N L N ca N o a) ≥ .... i O. C a) sO N O. — C 2 N c° 3 °p_ E m to ai o o C . c w > l 0) N Cu ° S o a N v) 3 - ° N co ° a) a o -c o m fl c a) ° : E c m L ° m 0 . aE c�i o -a) rn m O c m a ` `m emu° v° a a) 5 a) c ° ca O co CZ m o a) m ° a°i ° u ) aa) u 0 — c $ c Q N ci) 92 o° C Y •C• E `-' E N y a) a) a) T = E O. a) C �N., m p ` p c o) a) m co p@ m a) a fJ a) N C L C fa °c) m CO2 C 3 E al N d •- a) Tao = Et c 0 CO 303 c 3 c .- m d dilfi ca a) a) o2 >. d • () aO Cd °oNay >poa> ° $ c° a ° o0 y O o E ❑ m ° ❑ 2 O m Saw � 0 0 b ❑ a a w a � a 0 S wli co ✓ L d c 'O a a . . a S. S a w °o a a) , th ca 5 a E 7 Cn 0 O a+ b bA ..▪w N 0 R ✓ u et E N 1-1 V a) a7 m a _ — b E b U) N Cr a C N Ili y W C 3 CO J K V LL O a 0 O6 d CO 10 C m a 0 Coa) O V N . o y a) C C) a OU ti • m -O CI) ` E O - CO 3 � S O c o c in C O U 0 co N a O 0 O O O O` C C p 2 .0 m n C 3 a a N- > o A0 a m c a 0 o 0 0 N CO ` .@ N p d C Z' N C Q = U o c E 0) b .X m o C c C S O m O N m a Nw oc a) o5 ' s_ o Q a Sc ago ojo �-i+ Too 32o c5 C) .o a°i coo -oc > Dr o a`) cm a) u) .2 Co o 3 o m CO 0 LW� E aC� m 3 w o) c o a� To N o o m 4 m U o rnm o 0 a)• c a, = N Cr E vi co U .C C N N "O O O N v X j 3 o N > m C 2 -0 c0) co c _ a o a) ,4- c c c co a m °- c ami >, o O 0 E o o .C N N � m o 3 a Cu o N N N c m c 'O O D O O O G L 0 C C C co O N co c 0 -o N O D E �' U O O la co N O O O w N C N Y Uii o L m N O ? C > O € N m a 0 m �O-. O l.L U C Cu h C C O m Q m a O 'y O. '> = -0 C C a N E a o m 'ow a aN c m E nN t t O = L •y a aE Co o c LT O V 0 4 om o m E ) co N 3 "P 0 'o 5 O m "O .- N N U m Er) W O) "t-50 N• O D O V J m Q O m -9 O 0 3 Val 3 N '0 f6 m to N C O O V d N Z N C c a� E E o w O 1- `o m a u w '45 c a) .o °m 5 o m w d coat '= co -D3 1:-D Oa CO o; j a C1 0. N 'O >, a) a,.U-_ N O N C O N �O li 5 O co COi c _ c a—2 m e y E -o _�' � E ° .0 E y � aci U H ` N m Y C O U O >, CO m Y O N U O) N w = K m y ≤ O C O a) U O N p C Y O c C 'O O y t E C �. 'N C O .m`. U 3 a O m a m m C N O O • O C -O d C o .,, a.? N 00 c p o w l co p o y � O o iA o - a>oi m c0 -C 0a 0 � � o � � 2 g �° � E :. N -o 'n CI) U aC E E I— 0 m _ .' o O a E 'o O co- c ry a m _ Cu x c 0 03 oo ma -oaog .-amOa) N .Qya0- E din 2 c mc0 rN n • -- - cry «) 2 O O U an N .o U O >, O m C O N a, O E ;, o y m c O E y g Vi w+ .. N N m E O )p U C m a) a) 0 O or U O C N co E m 'o Z ab r " ° oco9o - _. ap °'U2O2i— o CE2o or ., y >o C m Oj a co -op; aNi a ° E o U y o o d E u0i 0 m a co ro Q m g a0i c O..- C.! t U CO 23 Q E U -o m CO a tL cr a CC OJDU = om2ac� cq � w CA etl 0_ . . . . . 4. . LL . L . . . . . . . . . 0- E C V) G O w Cu 00 .w . �-r .a C co .. V Cu a E .. N ,- U aJ CO m a r m E is- , p. 0 c co N ` 0 W N 2c co co C W O E Q CO el to. ) • p L O .�. te 0. U E-+ S \ / � \ b \ Ea : B _ ; [7 co co / / \ =0 76 c ) ) es 8 _ ( i1.5 c) 2 f _ § - _ o -Z E CD CD \ \ c .o- 0D NI } 0 \ �cu \ otoa \ \ 7 ) / _ " ( fl ) too 15 ocu co In r .ra)— Eco To conc00 ) ; - { % \% ] « ( [ g ' § § g co { ® i_ct ay ; ) 7 7 coI - o _ � ' ■ o to =2 0)3 f2 \ Co H it n it fi15 oS c _a 034-0 0SL0fl / ) t3 {2IoEDOa } D. § - - AL AL - - ) E 7 CO \ I 4- �0 ) ) \ E 0 « � t ® ._ - a _ 22 0 § / \ \ \ ILI 17; a) C. / ak9O- M } � � � ) ! } \ w § § d / § r / e 2 la7 - - - - • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • I i PUBLIC AND in s r AGENCY s r - 2 INVOLVEMENT i . r . , _ _ _ . . . . _ . ,_=......._ ,.. , ,..., ._,:c.___,_ ....._..... r-,w• • .• ,-. se,— •,.. - -, -- +-.. — . t+.i ��I , 4. •3'- it, ," „ rslw z 7Q. .di !r . N, 1 ..._ J_ . der 4.4, Sr 0 1 L - -r -- r " nit. 'T#O..s• "i...., i+..71illr s. • . .: /• r. -... . / - _ "...1•,... - `t w.' - I a1/21/2 i 1/2 : •1/2,1/2;— — III • .... . dp At .. . / J c! [ -r...�� e., Am \ I •II .• r K P. l e I f' ` a. 'I: -e N ORTH I-25 EIS IIinformation . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • CHAPTER 9 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 2 9.1 INTRODUCTION 3 NEPA and its implementing regulations requires "early and continuing opportunities what's in Chapter 9? for the public to be involved..." and that Chapter 9-Public and Agency Involvement "public involvement shall be proactive and 9.1 Introduction 7 provide complete information, timely public 9.2 Coordination a notice, full public access to key decisions 9.3 Scoping and Pre-Draft EIS Concerns and opportunities for early and continuous 9.4 Release of the Draft EIS involvement." The North 1-25 EIS provided 9.5 Future Public Involvement Activities ample opportunity for frequent and meaningful public feedback during the process. The project team fostered open communication and was responsive to all groups and individuals interested in this study. z. The project team communicated and collaborated with federal, state, and local government officials; regional transportation planning entities; community groups; civic and professional _• . organizations; businesses, and residents during the EIS process. The public involvement - process provided information, timely public notice, access to key decisions, public comment opportunities, and outlets for early and continuing participation. This chapter describes elements of the North 1-25 EIS public involvement process and specific • 2 activities conducted to date with the public; federal, state, and local agencies; and residential 11 populations in the project area. « 9.2 COORDINATION 23 9.2.1 Agency Coordination • Agency coordination was conducted to ensure a timely flow of project information, to solicit input from local agencies, and to obtain regulatory-related information and involvement from state and federal agencies. Agency involvement began with the Notice of Intent, which was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2003. Cooperating agency letters of • invitation were sent to the USACE, RTD, and the Federal Railroad Administration. Agency response to these letters of invitation was received and is included in Appendix B Agency Coordination. The USAGE and State Historic Preservation Officer participated in a merged process. This merged process was conducted in accordance with provisions of the January 2005 NEPA/Clean Water Act Section 404 Merger Process and Agreement for Transportation _3' Projects in Colorado, as well as with Section 800.8(c) provisions for merging the Section 106 review process with the NEPA process. 35 State and federal agencies who were involved included: 36 ► State Historic Preservation Officer ► Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ► Colorado Division of Wildlife W 35 ► U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Public and Agency Involvement 9-1 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 ► U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2 ► U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3 ► Federal Railroad Administration 4 ► Regional Transportation District 5 Consulting parties related to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act included: 6 ► Berthoud Historic Preservation Commission 7 ► Broomfield Historic Landmark Board �. ► Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission ► Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board ► Greeley Historic Preservation Commission ► Longmont Historic Preservation Commission I 2 ► Loveland Historic Preservation Commission ► Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board Local agencies involvement included representatives from 32 cities and towns (two which are r also counties) in the project area, seven counties, and four regional organizations. These are shown below: • 1- 9.2.2 Technical Coordination City/Town County Regional Ault Greeley Adams County DRCOG Berthoud Johnstown Boulder County RTD Boulder LaSalle Broomfield County NFRMPO Brighton Longmont Denver County UFRRPC Broomfield Louisville Jefferson County Burlstone Loveland Larimer County Commerce City Mead Weld County Dacono Milliken Denver Northglenn Erie Platteville Evans Severance Firestone Timnath Fort Collins Thornton Fort Lupton Wellington Frederick Westminster • Gilcrest Windsor Public and Agency Involvement 9-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. 9.2.2.1 REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE 2 The Regional Coordination Committee was organized to provide high-level, policy-related input to the project team. The committee (56 members) is composed of policy-level elected officials 4 or their designated representative and provides observations and feedback for communities in the regional study area. The Regional Coordination Committee has met 32 times since January 2004, as listed in Table 9-1.All Regional Coordination Committee meetings were 7 combined with the Technical Advisory Committee (Section 9.2.2.2) meetings in October 2008. 9.2.2.2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE u A Technical Advisory Committee was established to gain input on technical issues. The 1 committee (97 members) included representatives of local government and public sector 11 agencies along the corridor, along with CDOT, DRCOG, FHWA, FTA, NFRMPO, and RTD. 12 The Technical Advisory Committee met 47 times since February 2004, as listed in Table 9-1. 1 3 Between October 2008 and October 2009, a series of TAC and RCC meetings were held 14 specifically to come to agreement about what components should be included in the Preferred 1 5 Alternative and in Phase I. Table 9-1 Regional Coordination Committee/Technical Advisory Committee Meetings Date Group • Jan 28,2004 Regional Coordination Committee Feb 12, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Mar 11, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Apr 08, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee May 13, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Jun 09, 2004 Regional Coordination Committee Jun 10, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Jul 08, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Aug 12,2004 Technical Advisory Committee Aug 26,2004 Regional Coordination Committee Sep 09,2004 Technical Advisory Committee Oct 14,2004 Technical Advisory Committee and Regional Coordination Committee Nov 18, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Dec 09, 2004 Technical Advisory Committee Jan 13, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Feb 24,2005 Technical Advisory Committee Feb 24,2005 Regional Coordination Committee Apr21,2005 Technical Advisory Committee &Regional Coordination Committee May 19, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee May 19, 2005 Regional Coordination Committee June 2, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee&Regional Coordination Committee Jul 21, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Aug 18, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee &Regional Coordination Committee Oct 11, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Public and Agency Involvement 9.3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 9-1 Regional Coordination Committee/Technical Advisory Committee 2 Meetings (cont'd.) Date Group Nov 10, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Dec 15, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee January 12, 2006 Regional Coordination Committee Mar 09,2006 Technical Advisory Committee Mar 09,2006 Regional Coordination Committee April 13, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee May 11, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee& Regional Coordination Committee June 8, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Jul 13, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Sep 14, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Sep 14, 2006 Regional Coordination Committee Oct 12, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee Nov 09,2006 Technical Advisory Committee Nov 09, 2006 Regional Coordination Committee Jan 11, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Jan 11,2007 Regional Coordination Committee Mar 08, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Mar 08, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee May 10, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee May 10,2007 Regional Coordination Committee Jul 12, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Jul 12, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee Sep 13,2007 Technical Advisory Committee Sep 13, 2007 Regional Coordination Committee Nov 08, 2007 Technical Advisory Committee Nov 08,2007 Regional Coordination Committee Oct 14,2008 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Dec 15, 2008 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Jan 22, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Jan 29,2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Feb 12, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Apr 9, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee June 11, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Jul 23, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Sep 17, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Oct 1, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Feb 25,2010 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee Nov 10, 2010 Technical Advisory Committee/Regional Coordination Committee • Public and Agency Involvement 9-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 9.2.3 Technical Coordination 2 9.2.3.1 TRAVEL FORECAST WORKING GROUP 3 In order to gain community understanding and acceptance of the travel demand forecasting 4 model, a working group of technical representatives was established to oversee the 2 development of the EIS model. The group consisted of technical modeling members of NFRMPO, DRCOG, CDOT Region 4, CDOT Division of Transportation Development, RTD, 7 and the City of Fort Collins. Besides members of the local consultant team, the Travel 3 Forecast Working Group also included two travel model experts with extensive national experience combining models and performing transit forecasting. This group met seven times over a 15-month period as the EIS model was developed. 1 Two additional meetings were held in 2010 to discuss updated ridership forecasts for the commuter rail and bus service planned as a part of the Preferred Alternative. 13 9.2.3.2 LAND USE EXPERT PANEL a Indirect land use impacts, in particular induced growth, were evaluated through the use of a local expert panel. The panel consisted of municipal planners from Dacono, Firestone, `3 Fort Collins, Frederick, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Mead, and Windsor. Also on the panel were representatives from two large developers with projects in the area, as well as agency 13 representatives from CDOT, DRCOG, FHWA, and NFRMPO. The panel convened in • 9 October 2006. At that meeting, current induced growth research was described as well as any ' current drivers of growth. The panel then provided input on potential induced growth patterns 21 for each corridor based on the three alternatives. 9.2.4 Public Coordination 9.2.4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Public input was an important component of the North 1-25 EIS process. Public feedback helped to shape the options and alternatives considered for the project. Public input also Lc helped to ensure that the best possible transportation improvements will be made, and that the improvements will meet the challenges faced by Northern Colorado residents and travelers 18 both now and in the future. A full and complete record was kept of public comments and feedback obtained throughout the process. .1: The project team was committed to providing opportunities for frequent and meaningful public input at every step of the process. Team goals included fostering open lines of communication, 2 developing mutually beneficial relationships, and acting in a responsive manner to all groups 3." and individuals interested in this process. 9.2.4.2 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS As a part of the North 1-25 EIS, the National Research Center, Inc. was contracted to conduct a household travel survey of residents within the study area. While some transportation information existed that encompassed the study area, transportation planners felt that more information was needed about "special trips" and "long trips" made by residents in the corridor. •__, The survey primarily focused on determining residents' trip-making behavior for such types of trips. A random sample of 10,000 residential mailing addresses from zip codes in the regional Public and Agency Involvement 9.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 study area was selected for the North 1-25 EIS Household Travel Study. Of the 9,536 eligible 2 households, 3,152 households completed the survey, providing a response rate of 33 percent. 3 Results of the survey include the following points. 3 ► Residents take approximately two trips per year on average to sporting events in the 5 Denver Metro Area. All other destinations for sporting events are less than one trip per year. 7 ► Residents take approximately eight trips per year on the weekdays to DIA and approximately three trips per year to DIA on the weekends. 9 ► Approximately 95 percent of residents report using 1-25 for at least 1 trip in the previous 15 year. 1 ► 35 percent of residents travel a significant distance (five miles or more) on 1-25 for a work 2 or school commute. ► 46 percent of residents reported avoiding travel on 1-25, with 82 percent of these identifying 4 "too much congestion" as the reason, and 46 percent did not "feel safe" on 1-25. 5 9.2.4.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS 6 Public meetings provided an opportunity to solicit and collect comments to provide input to CDOT, FHWA, FTA, the project management team, and representatives from the local 1E' jurisdictions. The goals were to inform the public about project progress, to identify any concerns, and, where needed to discuss any concerns or ideas in one-on-one and group22 • formats. The project team presented relevant information and gave the public the opportunity to talk about the study with resource analysts. Public meetings were hosted at key points during the North 1-25 EIS project. Multiple avenues were used to notify the public about upcoming meetings. 2µ ► Project newsletters (February 2004, June 2004, October 2004, June 2005, January 2006, October 2006, and October 2008), meeting notification postcards, and e-mail were distributed to the project contact list. 27 ► Meeting information was posted on the project web site. 15 ► English and Spanish meeting notification flyers were distributed within the study area in L;, high-traffic areas including libraries, government offices, businesses, and senior centers. ► English and Spanish meeting notification advertisements appeared in newspapers throughout the study area. ► News releases were distributed to media. 3 ► Meeting information was distributed to city and county public information officers to 34 facilitate informing their constituents. ► Flyers were given to members of the Technical Advisory Committee and Regional 6 Coordination Committee to distribute in their communities. 2 In February 2004, three public scoping meetings introduced the project and determined the,, • . issues of concern that would be addressed. The meetings took place: Public and Agency Involvement 9.6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 1 ► February 3, 2004 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley 2 (37 recorded attendees) 3 ► February 5, 2004 at the Southwest Weld County Building, Longmont (32 recorded attendees) 5 ► February 10, 2004 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (179 recorded attendees) 7 Comment trends included: ► Support for a rail component ► Support for improvements to US 85 highway maintenance ► Support for converting current intersections along US 85 to interchanges ► Support for improvements to 1-25 and 1-25 interchanges including additional lanes, and 12 upgrading interchanges ► Safety concerns on 1-25 regarding speed, congestion, and traffic directly accessing the frontage road from the interstate ► Various environmental concerns were expressed with an emphasis on air quality, land use and wildlife. 17 At the end of June 2004, four public meetings took place to introduce the project's Purpose and Need and further determine the issues of concern regarding the project. The meetings took place: ► June 22, 2004 at the Evans Recreation Center, Evans (14 recorded attendees) ► June 24, 2004 at the Loveland Museum, Loveland (36 recorded attendees) 1 ► June 29, 2004 at the Margaret W. Carpenter Recreation Center, Thornton (12 recorded attendees) ► July 1, 2004 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (78 recorded attendees) Comment trends included: 23 ► The project should utilize available resources such as CDOT right-of-way and existing rail corridors. ► Widening 1-25 to three lanes in each direction is desired ► Preference for multi-modal options In October 2004, the project team hosted four public meetings to introduce the types of technologies and alternatives being consider during Level One Screening, share information on criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Level Two Screening, and outline the •: environmental data collection process. The meetings took place: Public and Agency Involvement 9-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► October 19, 2004 at the Commerce City Recreation Center, Commerce City 2 (2 recorded attendees) 3 ► October 21, 2004 at the McKee Conference & Wellness Center, Loveland 4 (22 recorded attendees) 5 ► October 26, 2004 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (58 recorded attendees) ► October 28, 2004 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley 8 (17 recorded attendees) 9 Comment trends included: 105 ► Concerns that transit options will encourage development and increase sprawl ► Transit development concerns 12 ► Interest in exploring alternative fuel options such as light rail and hybrid buses ► Support stronger for rail than BRT when considering multi-modal options 14 ► Options should focus on encouraging higher speed and lower travel times ► Concerns regarding lack of funding to meet costs associated with alternatives '.5 In June 2005, four public meetings took place to present the Level Two Screening alternative 17 evaluation results and the recommended alternatives that would be further developed and • evaluated in the Level Three Screening process. The meetings took place: ► June 14, 2005 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley (14 recorded attendees) 21 ► June 16, 2005 at the Lincoln Center, Fort Collins (62 recorded attendees) ► June 21, 2005 at the Loveland Police and Court Building, Loveland (24 recorded attendees) 25 ► June 23, 2005 at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, Longmont (27 recorded attendees) 7 Comment trends included: '23 ► Interest in convenient and direct travel to DIA. ► Strong support for commuter rail along US 287/BNSF line. ► Interest in a commuter rail spur from the US 287/BNSF line to Greeley. 21 ► Interest in implementing the access control plan on US 85. 32 ► Noise concerns with rail and the widening of 1-25. ► Interest in the impacts of increasing the cost of gas on travel and rail projections. ► Concern that the Front Range Toll Road will not be able to pull traffic off 1-25 if it is built and • that it should not be a consideration during the North 1-25 EIS. Public and Agency Involvement 9-8 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Throughout January and February 2006, twelve town hall meetings took place to present the 2 eight packages that were developed and evaluated during Level Three Screening, and to recommend which alternatives would move forward into the Draft Environmental Impact 4 Statement. The meetings took place: ► January 23, 2006 at the Aztlan Community Center, Fort Collins (64 recorded attendees) ► January 24, 2006 at the Windsor Community Center, Windsor (39 recorded attendees) ► January 25, 2006 at the Frederick Town Hall, Frederick (26 recorded attendees) 11 ► January 26, 2006 at the Thornton City Hall, Thornton (12 recorded attendees) ► January 30, 2006 at the Gilcrest Valley High School, Gilcrest (8 recorded attendees) ► January 31, 2006 at the Mead Town Hall, Mead (17 recorded attendees). ► February 1, 2006 at the Longmont Museum, Longmont (42 recorded attendees) ► February 2, 2006 at the Loveland Public Library, Loveland (32 recorded attendees) ► February 6, 2006 at the Greeley Recreation Center, Greeley (19 recorded attendees) • ► February 7, 2006 at the Harmony Library, Fort Collins (49 recorded attendees) • ► February 15, 2006 at the Southwest Weld County Building, Longmont (28 recorded attendees) ► February 16, 2006 at the Milliken Town Hall, Milliken (18 recorded attendees) Comment trends included: • ► Interest in connecting rail options to planned FasTracks lines 11 ► Concerns for lack of funding to meet cost associated with alternatives ► Concerns regarding improvements being implemented behind demand ► Interest on toll operations including usage fees, how tolled lanes work with H0V, what the money from fees will fund, utilizing transponders and enforcing toll fees - ► Support for multi-modal transit including a combination of rail and highway improvements ► Questions regarding wildlife and habitat impacts In November 2006, two public meetings introduced the addition of the NorthMetro Rail Connection that would connect the proposed rail alignment in Package A from the Longmont Sugar Mill site to the FasTracks North Metro line. The meetings took place: Public and Agency Involvement 9-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • ► November 13, 2006 at the Northglenn Recreation Center, Northglenn (10 recorded attendees) 3 ► November 15, 2006 at the Southwest Weld County Building, Longmont 9 4 (27 recorded attendees) Comment trends included: ► Concerns surrounding the type of impacts to wetlands ► Noise impact concerns ► Concern that there will not be ample parking at station locations ► Support for the North Metro Rail connection component added to Package A Study team members periodically reviewed public comments to identify recurring comments and common concerns. These were addressed in project newsletters and added to the project web site. Table 9-2 provides a list of public meetings by date, meeting purpose, location, and number of 4 attendees. • • Public and Agency Involvement 9-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. Table 9-2 Public Meetings Date Purpose/Topic Location No.of Attendees Feb 03, 2004 Scoping Meeting Greeley 37 Feb 05, 2004 Scoping Meeting Longmont 32 Feb 10, 2004 Scoping Meeting Fort Collins 179 Jun 22, 2004 Purpose and Need Evans 14 Jun 24, 2004 Purpose and Need Loveland 36 Jun 29, 2004 Purpose and Need Thornton 12 Jul 01, 2004 Purpose and Need Fort Collins 78 Oct 19, 2004 Level One Screening Commerce City 2 Oct 21, 2004 Level One Screening Loveland 22 Oct 26, 2004 Level One Screening Fort Collins 58 Oct 28, 2004 Level One Screening Greeley 17 Jun 15, 2005 Level Two Screening Greeley 14 Jun 17, 2005 Level Two Screening Fort Collins 62 Jun 21, 2005 Level Two Screening Loveland 24 Jun 23, 2005 Level Two Screening Longmont 27 Jan 23, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Fort Collins 64 Jan 24, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Windsor 39 Jan 25, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Frederick 26 • Jan 26, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Thornton 12 Jan 30, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Gilcrest 8 Jan 31, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Mead 17 Feb 01, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Longmont 42 Feb 02, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Loveland 32 Feb 06, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Greeley 19 Feb 07, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Fort Collins 49 Feb 15, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Longmont 28 Feb 16, 2006 Town Hall Meeting/Level Three Screening Milliken 18 Nov 13, 2006 Interchange Update and Southern Connectivity Northglenn 10 Nov 15, 2006 Interchange Update and Southern Connectivity Longmont 27 9.2.4.4 TRANSIT STATION WORKING GROUPS As part of the North 1-25 EIS, CDOT developed another forum for community members to - become involved in the study process by creating Transit Station Working Groups. 12. Three transit alternatives were evaluated as part of the North 1-25 EIS: commuter bus, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit. The working groups were organized to allow members of 7 the community to discuss and share ideas regarding transit station locations, bike and pedestrian connectivity, and maintenance facilities. Table 9-3 summarizes information regarding Transit Station Working Group meetings. • Public and Agency Involvement 9-11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 9-3 Transit Station Working Group Meetings Date Group Attendees Oct 18, 2005 Frederick 9 Oct 19, 2005 Loveland 19 Dec 05, 2005 North 1-25 15 Dec 08, 2008 US 287 3 Dec 12, 2005 South 1-25 5 Dec 15, 2006 US 85 2 Mar 20, 2006 North I-25/US 85 11 Mar 23, 2006 South 1-25/US 287 7 2 9.2.4.5 INTERCHANGE WORKING GROUPS From February 2006 through January 2007, 43 interchange working group meetings were 1 conducted with a total 241 public and civic participants. In addition, several one-on-one meetings took place with property owners. During these meetings, participants interacted with project engineers to determine interchange designs, right-of-way impacts, property impacts, and future traffic patterns. The designated interchange working groups were: ► Group 1 — US 36, E-470, and SH 7 ► Group 2— SH 7 and WCR 8 • ► Group 3 —WCR 8 and SH 52 ► Group 4- SH 119, SH 66, and WCR 34 2 ► Group 5— SH 56, SH 60 East, LCR 16, and SH 402 ► Group 6 - SH 402, US 34, Crossroads, and SH 392 4 ► Group 7— Harmony, Prospect, SH 14, SH 392, and SH 1 9.2.4.6 SPECIALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OUTREACH r, In an effort to ensure that everyone residing in the North 1-25 regional study area received - project information and was afforded the opportunity to provide input, special outreach efforts b were conducted to reach low-income and/or minority communities within the regional study area. These populations have been historically underrepresented in public processes. 29; Potential environmental justice populations were identified using 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 2 data and through local community and agency contacts (see Section 3.2.4). Outreach 22 activities were conducted in identified locations for low-income and/or minority environmental 23 justice populations in Brighton, Greeley, Fort Collins, Gilcrest, Longmont, Loveland, and 24 Thornton. 25 The public involvement team prepared supplementary copies of project newsletters, fact 26 sheets, and meeting announcements, which were translated into Spanish. English and Spanish project materials were distributed during other outreach efforts and to frequently • visited locations in the identified areas for posting where visible to the general public. Public and Agency Involvement 9.12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The public involvement team conducted outreach to businesses by going door-to-door and 2 distributing bi-lingual project information and surveys for potentially affected business owners in the identified areas. Outreach also included specialized small group meetings, attendance at 4 community events, and preparation of focused newsletters. Specialized Outreach Meetings 6 The project team contacted approximately 42 Hispanic/Latino community and church leaders 7 throughout the project. Hispanic/Latino community leaders were offered information about the 8 project and the opportunity for small group meetings. Small group meetings were held with the groups shown in Table 9-4. Table 94 Specialized Outreach Meetings Date Name of Group Location Nov 04, 2004 Loveland Housing Authority Loveland, CO Aug 06, 2005 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO Aug 13, 2005 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO Jul 28, 2005 Windsor Farmers' Market Windsor, CO Jan 23, 2006 Aztlan Fort Collins Town Hall Meeting Fort Collins, CO • Mar 14, 2006 Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision Larimer County, CO Sep 21, 2006 El Comite de Longmont Longmont, CO Sep 21, 2006 A New Image, LLC Brighton, CO Oct 25, 2006 Templo Betel Fort Collins, CO Nov 11, 2006 Agua Viva Baptist Church Loveland, CO Nov 19, 2006 Holy Family Catholic Church Fort Collins, CO October 26, 2010 City of Longmont Longmont, CO Specialized Outreach Events 2 The project team also identified and attended local cultural and community events to distribute information about the project, answer questions, and gather comments. Fifteen events were attended between 2004 and 2006 (Table 9-5). These include: • Public and Agency Involvement 9-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 9-5 Specialized Outreach Events Date Name of Event Location Jun 05, 2004 Berthoud Day Berthoud, CO Aug 07, 2004 Loveland Art in the Park Loveland, CO Aug 24, 2004 Frederick Miners Day Frederick, CO Sep 11, 2004 Celebrate Lafayette Lafayette, CO Sep 18, 2004 Greeley Fiesta Greeley, CO Dec 01, 2004 Colorado HUG Banquet and Expo Greeley, CO Aug 05, 2005 Greeley Farmers Market Greeley, CO Aug 13, 2005 Loveland Art in the Park Loveland, CO Au Aug 13, 2005 and Milliken Beef-n-Bean Day Milliken, CO 9 14, 2005 Sep 10, 2005 Celebrate Lafayette Lafayette, CO Sep 17, 2005 Frederick Miners Day Frederick, CO Sep 16, 2006 Mexican Independence Day Longmont, CO Sep 30, 2006 Bridging the Immigration Divide Longmont, CO CoSep 30, 2006 Faimmunity Development Resource Adams County, CO • Specialized Outreach Newsletters Following the release of the Draft EIS, specialized outreach included the distribution of focused newsletters that summarized the impacts and benefits of the project (Table 9-6). Table 9-6 Specialized Outreach Newsletters Date Name of Group Location Nov, 2008 City of Longmont Longmont, CO Nov, 2008 Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision Larimer County, CO Summary of Input Received During Specialized Outreach Input received through specialized outreach centered on community needs and concerns F regarding the proposed improvements. Participants indicated repeatedly that transit service ci was needed between Longmont, Loveland, Denver, Boulder, and southwest Weld counties. Congestion on 1-25 was seen as limiting access to businesses and participation in cultural events in Metro Denver. Most residents from Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, and Loveland would be willing to drive to access transit service to Denver. Participants expressed general concern about the cost of the alternatives and how alternatives 4 would be funded. Participants disagreed about the impacts of tolling. Some felt that public • transportation should be open to all and that tolling would exclude citizens. Others preferred tolling because it provided funding for construction and maintenance and would ease congestion. Public and Agency Involvement 9-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 Participants indicated a need for transit options to reach important community facilities (local 2 schools and churches), regional employment centers (DIA and the Denver Technical Center), 3 and commuter cities (Cheyenne, Denver, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, and Loveland). It 4 also was pointed out that many minority community members do not work typical business 5 hours and may hold multiple jobs. For transit to be effective, it should be flexible, affordable, c accommodate persons with disabilities, accommodate persons with bicycles, and operate on 7 weekends and evenings. 2 In a meeting held in Brighton, attendees indicated that there were negative feelings toward 9 transit because it is unreliable, provides limited service, and requires lengthy wait times. In addition, transit was not deemed feasible for those with construction jobs who are required to ' be in several locations throughout the day. While some suggested that bus service should be 1 2 provided along US 85, most felt that more lanes are needed on US 85, SH 7, and 1-25. Other : than Brighton, participants generally felt that transit alternatives would enhance employment 14 opportunities and increase access to shopping, cultural events, and services for minority and low-income populations throughout the Front Range. Many participants also preferred transit '? to highway widening because they considered it a cheaper, safer, and a less stressful option. - Most participants felt that existing transit does not adequately serve minority and low-income communities. Some underserved locations identified by meeting participants include the OUR Medical Center (Longmont), new development east of SH 119 in Longmont, the Casa Vista _ residential subdivision (Longmont), St. John's Church (Longmont), Casa Esperanza (Longmont), Bill Reed middle school (Loveland), Centerra (Loveland), and the Holy Catholic Church (Fort Collins). Participants preferred options that included transit to these destinations. • 2 Participants also identified key community facilities, minority and low-income neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses throughout the study area. These include the Pullman Center - (12th and Garfield in Loveland); Wal-Mart (Loveland); Loveland Lake Park; Wynona Elementary School (Loveland); the Hispanic neighborhoods of Cherry Street, Buckingham, • La Colonia, Andersonville, Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park, and Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park (Fort Collins); Hispanic businesses along US 287 north of Cherry Street in Fort Collins; • and Hispanic businesses along US 34 east of US 287 in Longmont. Participants also preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants were concerned about immigration policy. Hispanic or Latino populations may not use public transit if they have to show identification or are distrustful of authority. Some also indicated that they avoid using 1-25 because they feel that Hispanic/Latino drivers are pulled over more frequently by the Colorado State Highway Patrol. Input received through specialized outreach helped the project team to understand what community resources are important to minority and low-income communities. Meeting participants identified key community facilities, neighborhoods, businesses, underserved areas, and important relationships between communities (social, familial, employment). These resources will be given special consideration throughout the impact analysis. 9.2.4.7 LOCAL GROUP AND ORGANIZATION MEETINGS 11 Project team members conducted localized group and organization meetings that provided the 4L opportunity to present detailed project information in a very personalized manner to a larger 43 number of individuals. Public and Agency Involvement 9-15 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Through targeted outreach, the team contacted neighborhood associations, business 2 associations, and civic groups to offer briefings. Forty-one meetings took place with 3 individuals, businesses, and organizations as listed in Table 9-7. 4 All information gathered from these meetings was documented in HIRSYS, the comment tracking database, and shared with the project team. 6 9.2.4.8 PROJECT WEB SITE 7 The project web site (http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis)went online in May 8 2003. The web site serves as an educational and information-sharing tool providing the most up-to-date project information. This integral part of the public outreach program provides the IC public with access to past project information documents and the latest project information including: ► Calendar of events ► Community-specific information ► Purpose and need ► The EIS process ► Newsletters ► Public meeting boards and records ► Final technical reports ► Project schedule ► FAQs ► Opportunities for public involvement ► Maps 2 In addition to sharing information, the project web site provides the public with opportunities to13 • share input, request a speaker, or request to be added to the project distribution list through the 1.1 contact form. Key project information is also displayed in Spanish. 9.2.4.9 MEDIA OUTREACH .. Periodic news releases and media advisories were prepared and sent to the local media in advance of public meetings. News releases and media advisories were sent in January 2004, c June 2004, October 2004, June 2005, December 2005, January 2006, October 2006, November 2006, September 2007, November 2008, and January 2010. News releases and media advisories also were translated into Spanish and distributed to Spanish-language news 21 media in the Denver Metro Area. The project team conducted two rounds of media tours during which the project manager and 23 public involvement manager met with reporters and editors of the newspapers with the largest 24 circulation in the study area. The team visited the Fort Collins Coloradoan, Loveland Reporter- 25 Herald and the Greeley Tribune. 26 Additionally, the public involvement team prepared media kits, which were distributed to 17 reporters who attended public meetings. The content of these kits varied slightly for each 26 meeting but typically included the most recent meeting notification news release, frequently 29 asked questions, and graphics of alternatives being considered by the project team. • Public and Agency Involvement 9-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 9-6 Local Group and Organization Meeting Date Group No. of Attendees Apr 05, 2004 Northern Colorado Public Communicators 23 Apr 23, 2004 Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs 25 Committee Apr 23, 2004 Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs & 30 Transportation Committee Apr 26, 2004 Fort Collins Board of Realtors 25 May 04, 2004 Fort Collins Lions Club 15 May 11, 2004 Erie Lion's Club Small Group 12 May 12, 2004 Loveland Commercial Realtor Association. 25 May 12, 2004 Windsor Chamber 12 May 18, 2004 Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation 20 May 19, 2004 Ft. Lupton Chamber of Commerce 30 May 20, 2004 PEDAL—Loveland Bicycle Group 15 May 21, 2004 Rodarte Center Seniors 40 May 24, 2004 Johnstown/Milliken Lions 10 May 27, 2004 Eaton Lion's Club Small Group 24 Jun 11, 2004 Johnstown/Milliken Rotary 20 Jun 15,2004 Loveland Rotary Club 120 • Jun 24, 2004 Brighton Chamber of Commerce 84 Jul 12, 2004 City of Greeley 12 Jul 14, 2004 Longmont Kiwanis Club 15 Jul 15, 2004 Broomfield Econ. Development Corporation 25 Jul 20, 2004 Longmont Rotary Club 125 Aug 10, 2004 Loveland Connection Club 20 Sep 02, 2004 Broomfield Transportation Commission 7 Sep 08, 2004 Loveland Kiwanis 40 Sep 08, 2004 Westminster Transportation Commission 10 Sep 20, 2004 Commerce City Development 5 Oct 02, 2004 ColoRail 45 Oct 11, 2004 Larimer County Engineering 15 Nov 04, 2004 Housing Authority of Loveland 20 Nov 08, 2004 League of Women Voters of Larimer County 40 Nov 14, 2004 Riders For Justice 25 Nov 16, 2004 Weld County League of Women Voters 20 Dec 13,2004 Longmont Transportation Advisory board 10 Jan 10,2005 Johnstown/Milliken Lion's Club 10 Jan 13,2005 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Northern 8 Colorado Chapter Jan 18,2005 City of Greeley Community Outreach Staff 2 Jan 17,2007 Mulberry Corridor Owners Association 23 Feb 06, 2007 Downtown Loveland Association 11 Ill Mar 14, 2007 Mason Corridor Open House 15-20 Mar 13, 2007 Colorado Rail Association 2 Apr 10, 2007 US 36 Commuting Solutions 30 Public and Agency Involvement 9-17 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 9.3 SCOPING AND PRE-DRAFT EIS CONCERNS 2 The study team developed a protocol for responding to public comments to comply with 3 NEPA suggestions for an interactive and comprehensive public involvement process. The 4 process encouraged interested parties to provide comments and developed processes for 5 responding to comments or incorporating community concerns into project informational 6 materials. 7 Public comments were received through a variety of means, and by many people on the 8 project team. Comments were evaluated, and if necessary, responded to in the following 9 manner: ► HIRSYS/ Hotline Comments — Comments received via web entry or hotline call that requested information were routed through the appropriate project team members for a response. 1 ► Routine Comments and Questions — Frequently asked comments or questions were 14 handled by public involvement representatives using prepared responses. 5 w Web Entries or Hotline Messages — Information from web entries or persons leaving individual contact information was added to the project contact database. ► Verbal Notes from Meetings — Comments received through verbal communication at meetings were added to the project database. 9 ► Specific Requests — Specific requests requiring follow-up by a project team member were • addressed by the individuals receiving the comment. 11 ► Public Meeting Comment Forms (received at the meetings) — Comments received via comment forms submitted at the meeting were added to the database. ► Public Meeting Comment Forms (mailed after public meetings) —Comments received via comment forms mailed to project representatives after public meetings were added to the database. ► Hard Copy Documents — Letters received via regular mail from interested parties were routed through the appropriate project team members for a response, if necessary. 23 Comments offering suggestions for the project team, but not requesting information or answers to questions were reviewed and addressed through the project process, where possible. These documents were scanned and added to the project database. 31 Comment summaries were reviewed by project team members to analyze public concerns and 32 needs. Action on specific outstanding questions or comments was taken where needed. 3 Common questions were answered in the "frequently asked questions" section on the project u web site, and distributed at public meetings. _" 5 Comments that are the most common or that reflect trends are summarized below. Please see :,c: Appendix A for a complete list of all public comments received by the project team. • Public and Agency Involvement 9-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 9.3.1 Transit 2 There is significant support among members of the public for transit, especially rail. People mentioned the public stigma attached to bus service. The general sentiment is that rail service 4 would attract more people to transit than bus service would. Comments received relative to transit are summarized below: ► A significant number of comments were received in support of a train or rail alternative. ► Support was given for rail service that would use existing rail lines in order to reduce the cost to riders and facilitate quick implementation of service. ► Bus service was seen in some ways as being the most economical, but concern was expressed that it would add to congestion on already stressed highways. ► It is perceived that mass transit would not help to relieve highway congestion. ► Bus rapid transit, with fast and timely supporting local service, was seen to be the most affordable option. ► Links to DIA were considered important. • ► Bus stations are needed at major intersections. Bus stations with protected shelters are needed to attract riders and buses should run 24 hours-a-day. Bus shelters/stations are critical to shifting travelers from automotive to mass transit. Private enterprise would work best. Also most people consider bus service as a third-class mode of transportation. Mass • transit needs to be made more attractive to help change people's attitudes towards it. ► There is interest in locating stations and rail lines near larger population areas. There is interest in placing rail near the "Tri-town" area of Frederick, Dacono, and Firestone, determining the type of driver who would be willing to drive to reach the station and how far those riders would be willing to drive, for eliminating the need for feeder buses from east, and for locating a station at WCR 7 and SH 52 to service high-traffic volume on SH 52. ► Most towns along the western alignment were built along rail. Developments tend to occur along transportation routes. I-25 could have the same kind of appeal and resulting economic development impacts should be considered. - 9.3.2 Highway - The general sentiment is that highway improvements are already overdue. There were many comments regarding safety and the deteriorating condition of bridges and interchanges. The public understands and agrees that the highway will require improvements regardless of what transit service is provided. Comments received relative to highway improvements are summarized below: ► Support was given for upgrading 287 and/or US 85 to expressways to compete with the speed and convenience of 1-25. It was felt that US 85 needs major improvements and upgrades as part of the solution. ► Support was given for using tolls to finance highway improvements. • ► Interest was expressed for only improving existing roads and not building new roads. Public and Agency Involvement 9-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 ► It was felt that toll roads would 'cater' to higher-income portions of society and a public 2 transportation system should be accessible to the entire community. 3 ► There is a perception that if the highway were widened and traffic was no longer stop-and- 4 go, people would use the highways. 5 ► It was felt that if 1-25 were to be widened through Weld County, it would result in heavy 6 congestion. Pressure to develop that area is high and an eight-lane highway would expedite development and exacerbate congestion. o 9.3.3 Environment 9 Concern for the protection of the natural environment was strong. Diminishing air quality and 10 loss of wetlands along 1-25 were of special concern. Comments received relative to the 11 environmental resources are summarized below: 12 ► Support was given for putting the environment, especially air quality, above the needs of development. "After air quality, the river corridors and wetlands should take precedence." ► Transportation improvements should be placed where they won't affect open space or 5 degrade views. Open space and important views should be saved. ► Alternative fuels should be considered. ► Regarding noise impacts, it was felt there were problems with current noise levels and additional lanes would cause property owners to be unable to hear anything but 1-25 in • their yards. There is a preference for higher noise walls, even if that would result in losses to residents' view of the mountains. 9.3.4 Other Comments ► Package A offers a lot of support for current transportation needs. Northern Coloradans make a lot of short trips and Package A would have a positive impact on their ability to make such trips by allowing people to take advantage of other modes of transportation. <5 ► Package B lacks an east-west connection, which would not be beneficial for persons 9 traveling from Loveland to Greeley. 2 ► The business community was supportive of either of the Draft EIS build packages moving forward. ► A 20-year timeframe was felt to be too short. It would be better to use a time frame that looks 50 years and beyond. ► Regarding safety, increased law enforcement is needed to counter an increase in 3z accidents between 1991 and 2001. ► 1-25 should not be a barrier to bicyclists (and pedestrians). Many safe crossings should be 4 provided to accommodate people who will use modes other than automobiles to cross 1-25. • Public and Agency Involvement 9.20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 9.4 RELEASE OF THE DRAFT EIS • A Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on 3 October 31, 2008. The Notice of Availability included the date and locations of the public 4 hearings. The following means were also used to notify the public of the release of the Draft 5 EIS and the public hearings: ► Mailed newsletters to 3,700 people • ► Ran ads in thirteen English-language and two Spanish-language newspapers that have a total circulation of almost 200,000 • ► Distributed news releases to approximately 100 newspapers, radio and TV stations The Draft EIS was made available to the public on the the project website at: http://www.coloradodot.info/proiects/north-i-25-eis) and at the following locations: ► Brighton City Hall, 22 S. 4th Ave., Brighton ► Longmont Civic Center, 350 Kimbark St., Longmont ► Erie Town Hall, 645 Holbrook, Erie '4 ► Ft. Collins City Bldg., 300 Laport, Fort Collins • ► Ft. Collins Regional Library District, 201 Pertson, Fort Collins • ► Longmont Public Library, 409 4th Avenue, Longmont ► Northglenn City Hall, 11701 Community Center Dr., Northglenn • ► Thornton City Hall, 9500 Civic Center Dr., Thornton ► Dacono City Hall, 512 Cherry St., Dacono • ► Firestone Town Hall, 151 Grant Ave., Firestone • ► Frederick Town Hall Admin Bldg, 401 Locust St., Frederick • ► Greeley City Bldg, 1000 10th Avenue, Greeley ► Greeley Lincoln Park Library, 919 7th St., #100, Greeley 25 ► Johnstown Town Hall, 101 Charlotte St., Johnstown 6 ► Larimer County, 200 West Oak St. Suite 3000, Ft. Collins z- ► Loveland City Hall, 500 E. 3rd St., #110, Loveland 23 ► Loveland Library, 300 N. Adams, Loveland ► Mead Town Hall, 441 Third St., Mead ► Milliken Town Hall, 2951 Ash St., Milliken ► SW Weld County Bldg, 915 10th St., Greeley • 2 Public and Agency Involvement 9-21 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Additional public and agency involvement activities, including Regional Coordination 2 Committee and Technical Advisory Committee meetings, specialized outreach, and 3 coordination with agencies that were conducted prior to the release of the Draft EIS are 4 included in Table 9-1 through Table 9-6. 9.4.1 Summary of Comments 6 The 60-day comment period for the Draft EIS ended on December 31, 2008. During the 7 comment period, three public hearings were held at: $ ► Fort Collins—Fort Collins Lincoln Center—November 19, 2008 9 ► Longmont—Longmont Public Library—November 18, 2008 0 ► Loveland—Outlets at Loveland—November 20, 2008 11 The purpose of the public hearings was to present the findings of the Draft EIS to the "2 communities in the regional study area and receive feedback on the proposed alternatives. 13 During the Draft EIS comment period, a total of 1,025 comments were received from the public 14 in the following manners: '5 ► 352 comments were submitted through the project web site 6 ► 152 were mailed to CDOT 1 ? ► 70 verbal comments were made at public hearings • $ ► 16 comments came in by phone call to the project hot line ► 10 comments were received via email Li ► 425 individuals signed a petition with the title "Front Range on Track", which was submitted 2' to CDOT. The text of the petition is: We, the undersigned, express our support for Commuter Rail, along Hwy 287 from Fort Collins to Denver Metro FasTracks connections 23 as described in Package A of CDOT's North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 4 We support the mass transit components of Package A and necessary safety upgrades on 1-25. 2e. The comments received on the Draft EIS reflected the following community sentiment: 27 ► 194 support commuter rail 28 ► 166 support Package A because of commuter rail _ ► 34 provide support for Package A without stating specifically why 80 ► 30 support all the components in Package A 1 ► 50 support transit of any kind. Most of them indicate that they support the use of bus until 32 rail can be developed. 33 ► 15 comments were received in support of rail along 1-25 34 ► 21 comments stated opposition to rail along 1-25 • 35 ► 5 indicated that they do not support rail at all Public and Agency Involvement 9-22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 1 ► 21 state that they are opposed to any highway improvements at all ► 8 support only highway improvements ► 4 stated they support rail but only if monorail is the technology selected -4 ► 4 support both packages ► 3 don't support either package 6 ► 3 want whatever safety improvements can be made 7 Comments were also received from the following federal, state, regional, and local agencies: ► U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9 ► North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization e ► Denver Regional Council of Governments ► U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 ► State Historic Preservation Officer 13 ► Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a ► U.S. Department of Interior ► Town of Erie 6 ► Town of Berthoud ► Boulder County 167, ► City and County of Broomfield ► Town of Frederick _ ► Larimer County Board of County Commissioners ► City of Loveland 22 ► City of Longmont ► City of Greeley ► Weld County ► Town of Timnath 26 ► City of Fort Collins 27 A copy of the agency and public comments received and responses to the comments, 26 including the court report transcripts of oral comments received at the public hearings are 2J included in Appendix A Public Involvement and Appendix B Agency Coordination. Public and Agency Involvement 9.23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 9.5 FUTURE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES 2 The availability of the Final EIS and the dates and locations of the public hearings will be 2, announced at least 15 days in advance of the hearings. A 30-day public comment period will 4 be provided for review of the Final EIS. Comments received during the comment period will be reviewed and responses will be provided in a Record of Decision to be issued by CDOT and 6 FHWA documenting the decisions made for the North 1-25 EIS. 7 The Final EIS will be made available to the public at the project website (http://www.coloradodot.info/proiects/north-i-25-eis) and at the same locations where the Draft EIS was available. These locations are as follows: ► Brighton City Hall, 22 S. 4th Ave., Brighton ► Longmont Civic Center, 350 Kimbark St., Longmont ► Erie Town Hall, 645 Holbrook, Erie ► Ft. Collins City Bldg., 300 Laport, Fort Collins '4 ► Ft. Collins Regional Library District, 201 Pertson, Fort Collins ► Longmont Public Library, 409 4th Avenue, Longmont ► Northglenn City Hall, 11701 Community Center Dr., Northglenn ► Thornton City Hall, 9500 Civic Center Dr., Thornton • w Dacono City Hall, 512 Cherry St., Dacono ► Firestone Town Hall, 151 Grant Ave., Firestone ► Frederick Town Hall Admin Bldg, 401 Locust St., Frederick ► Greeley City Bldg, 1000 10th Avenue, Greeley ► Greeley Lincoln Park Library, 919 7th St., #100, Greeley ► Johnstown Town Hall, 101 Charlotte St., Johnstown ► Larimer County, 200 West Oak St. Suite 3000, Ft. Collins ► Loveland City Hall, 500 E. 3rd St., #110, Loveland ► Loveland Library, 300 N. Adams, Loveland ► Mead Town Hall, 441 Third St., Mead 25 ► Milliken Town Hall, 2951 Ash St., Milliken ► SW Weld County Bldg, 915 10th St., Greeley • Public and Agency Involvement 9-24 II PREPARERS t . r ,.• -, I yr .. .. IlliNalikaANSIja141 C .r . • - 7 111 . . i.. • y , �. : .r. � • n 4 -• -,t... __ L i_4. f - : , A,w�l9��Lbxh ♦r i ...1 • IY - " # / , ` N. N ORTH I-25 EIS 111 information . cooperation. transportation . Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Ii CHAPTER 10 LIST OF PREPARERS 2 The primary consultant for this project is Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). FHU used two • major subconsultants (Jacobs and Vladimir Jones) and various other specialty subconsultants to provide technical expertise. These specialty subconsultants included: ► Centennial Archaeology: archaeological surveys u ► Clarion Associates: land use • ► Connetics: transit operations planning o ► ERO: wildlife and endangered species 9 ► GEOCAL: geologic and soils ► Goodbee and Associates: utilities ► Hartwig and Associates: highway design ► Hermsen Consultants: historic property surveys ► H.C. Peck and Associates: right-of-way "4 ► HMMH: transit noise and vibration analysis • ► Flatirons Marketing & Communications: document editing ► Maintenance Design Group: maintenance facilities design ► Two Hundred: public involvement 18 ► Wilbur Smith Associates: tolled express lane operations Table 10-1 lists the representatives of the agencies and firms responsible for preparation of 88 this EIS (Draft and Final), with their project responsibility, education, and experience. • List of Preparers 10-1 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 10-1 List of Preparers Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration I Experience FHWA Monica Pavlik BS, Geological Engineering 16 years preparing and Document Reviewer MS, Environmental Science and reviewing environmental Engineering documents PE (Colorado) FTA David Beckhouse BS, Political Science 14 years preparing and Document Reviewer MPA, Public Administration reviewing environmental documents Susan Martin BA, History 26 years legal compliance for Document Reviewer MA, History, NEPA documents AA, Criminal Justice JD, Law Larry Squires BA, English and Criminology 10 years preparing and Document Reviewer MA, Urban and Regional reviewing planning and Planning environmental documents CDOT Carol Parr BS, Biology 27 years biological sciences CDOT Project Manager MS, Natural Science 10 years NEPA analysis David Martinez BS, Civil Engineering 27 years transportation • CDOT Project Engineer(DEIS) PE (Colorado) engineering Myron Hora HS, Registered Prof. Land 22 years construction CDOT Planning and Surveyor engineering, surveying & Environmental Manager design, planning & environmental Long Nguyen BS, Civil Engineering 18 years transportation PE1/Project Manager PE (Colorado) engineering Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Bob Felsburg BS, Civil Engineering 36 years transportation Project Director MS, Civil Engineering engineering PE (Colorado) Tom Anzia BS, Civil Engineering 28 years transportation Project Manager MS, Civil Engineering engineering PE (Colorado) Holly Buck MS, Civil Engineering 15 years transportation Purpose and Need BS, Engineering Management planning Alternatives, Traffic PE (Colorado) Thor Gjelsteen BS, Forestry 22 years environmental Final EIS Manager MS, Geology analysis Quality Assurance Registered Professional Geologist • List of Preparers 10-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 10-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration I Experience Felsburg Holt&Ullevlg(cont'd) Todd Frisbie BA, Economics 12 years traffic and Traffic Analysis BS, Civil Engineering transportation analysis MS, Civil Engineering PE (Colorado) Jennica Hartman AD, Civil Engineering 8 years design and plan Roadway Design/Planning Technology preparation Jeff Ream BS, Civil Engineering 19 years traffic and Traffic Analysis PE (Colorado) transportation analysis Jeanne Sharps BS, Civil Engineering 22 years structural Engineering Manager PE (Colorado) engineering 5 years engineering management Brian Wiltshire BS, Civil Engineering 8 years civil engineering Roadway Design PE (Colorado) Ken Soellner BS, Industrial Technology 21 years design and plan Roadway Design/Planning preparation Cindy Otegui BS, Civil Engineering 12 years structural • Structural Engineer MS, Civil Engineering engineering PE (Colorado, Wyoming) Stephanie Sangaline BS, Civil Engineering 21 years civil engineering Freight Rail Coordination Stan Shibao Associate Degree 28 years transportation Roadway Design/Planning Civil Eng—Technology planning & preparation Gregg Mugele BS, Environmental Design 28 years transportation Quality Assurance planning and NEPA analysis Value Engineering Ed Lind BSC, Physical Science 32 years water resources Floodplain/Water Quality BA, Geology PE (Colorado, Utah, Montana) Kendra Gabbert BS, Civil Engineering 3 years water resources Floodplain/Water Quality Alex Pulley BS, Biology, Env. Management 13 years environmental Water Quality Analysis Graduate Studies, Env. Science analysis and Eng. Laura Archerd MEPM, Environmental Policy 5 years environmental Hazardous Materials and Water and Management analysis Resources Kevin Maddoux BA, Environmental Science 13 years environmental Hazardous Materials MEPM, Environmental Policy analysis and Management • AICP Registered Planner L List of Preparers 10-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 10-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration Experience Felsburg Holt&Ullevig (cont'd) Dale Tischmak BS, Biology and Chemistry 24 years quantitative Traffic Noise MS, Chemistry environmental analysis Jason Marmor BA, Cultural Anthropology 21 years historic site Historic Site Coordination and MA, Historic Preservation evaluation and preservation Effects Determination Jan Campbell BA,Graphic Design 29 years graphic design Graphic Design Zach Topoleski AS, Chemistry/Civil Drafting 28 years graphic design Graphic Design Evan Kirby BS, Environmental Studies/ 14 years GIS analysis Geographic Information Services Geography Keith Hidalgo BS,Wildlife Biology 7 years GIS analysis Geographic Information Services Jacobs Gina McAfee, Principal BS, Landscape Architecture 32 years NEPA transportation Deputy Project Manager AICP Registered Planner analyses Bob Quinlan BS, Biology 32 years natural resource and Final EIS Manager MS,Zoology and Physiology NEPA analyses Wendy Wallach BA, Geography 12 years NEPA analysis • Draft EIS Manager MA, Urban and Regional Planning AICP Registered Planner Robert Rutherford BS, Biology 6 years natural resource and WetlandsNegetation/Noxious NEPA analyses Weeds Bill Knapp BS, Natural Resource 6 years natural resources and WetlandsNegetation Management NEPA analyses Andy Priest BS, Natural Resource 11 years GIS analysis Geographic Information Services Management Kevin McDermott BS, National Resource 7 years NEPA analysis Land Use, Social Conditions, Recreation and Tourism, Economics, Section 4(f) Park and Protected Area Evaluation, Section 6(f), Historic Management Resources, Parks and MA, Urban and Regional Recreational Resources Planning Brian Werle BS, Geological Engineering 18 years environmental Land Use Specialist MS, Urban Planning planning PE (Colorado) 5 years NEPA analysis Jennifer Wolchansky BS, Environmental Science Environmental Justice, Farmlands, MA, Geography Energy, Public Safety and Security • List of Preparers 10-4 Final EIS NORTH 125 • August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 10-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration [ Experience Jacobs(cont'd) Misty Swan 30 years NEPA Document Cumulative, Farmlands Preparation Dana Ragusa BS, Environmental Studies 11 years environmental Air Quality planning and NEPA analyses Karen Rhea BFA, Commercial Art 15 years design drawings and Graphic Design graphics Shonna Sam BA, Environmental Studies 4 years NEPA analysis Socio-Economic, Environmental BA, Geography Justice, Cumulative MA, Urban and Regional Planning AICP Registered Planner Craig Gaskill BS,Civil Engineering 26 years transportation Alternatives Development and MS,Transportation Engineering/ engineering and planning Transit Planning Planning PE (Colorado),AICP, PTOE Jennifer Merer BA, Philosophy and History 13 years landscape Visual Resources, Bike and MLA, Landscape Architecture architecture and aesthetic IP Pedestrian, Transit Planning and evaluation. Design Jim Krogman AS, Civil Engineering 28 years civil engineering Commuter Rail Planning and Design Julie Walker BA, Political Science and 6 years transit planning, safety Alternatives Development,Transit Environmental Studies and security,and financial Planning, Safety and Security, MS, Urban and Regional analysis Financial Analysis Planning Chris Primus MS, Transportation 16 years transportation Task Manager,Travel Forecasting MS, Computational Mathematics planning and travel forecasting BA, Mathematics Keith Borsheim Bachelor of Environmental 9 years transportation Traffic Operations, Transportation Design BA, planning Planning Paul Brown BS, Civil Engineering 19 years traffic engineering, Traffic, Transit Planning Professional Traffic Op's Eng. transportation planning and PE(Colorado, New York, NEPA analyses New Mexico) Ken Carlson Continuing education in 39 years survey, mapping, Survey, Mapping, Right-of-way Geodesy and GPS right-of-way Professional Land Surveyor Jill Schlaefer BS, Geology 22 years geology and GIS Air Quality MS, Geology 6 years NEPA analysis • L List of Preparers 10-5 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 10-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration I Experience Jacobs(cont'd) Jim Clarke BA, History 18 years NEPA analysis, QA Lead Reviewer[Section 4(f), MS, Urban and Regional environmental analysis and Section 6(f), trails] Planning planning AICP Certified Planner Danielle Smith BS/MENG, Civil Engineering 12 years highway transit Transit Engineering PE (Colorado) design Diane Yates, RLA BS, Landscape Architecture 28 years experience Wetland Specialist RLA(New Mexico, California) assessing and design of wetlands, and ecological restoration Karen Rhea BA, Commercial Art 15 Years graphic design Graphics Vladimir Jones Kim McCarl BS, Public Relations 16 years public involvement, Public Involvement Manager Accredited in Public Relations community relations, media (APR) by the Public Relations relations, and public Society of America information Jessica Woolery BS, Public Relations 5 years public involvement, Public Involvement community relations, media • relations, and public information Centennial Archaeology Christian J. Zier PhD, Anthropology 32 years archaeology, history, Principal Investigator,Archaeology NEPA analysis Mary W. Painter MA, Anthropology 17 years archaeology, history, Project Director for NEPA analysis Archaeology/History; Linear Historical Sites Christopher C. Kinneer MA candidate, Anthropology 10 years archaeology, history Crew Chief,Archaeological Survey Denise Fallon Zier BA, Anthropology 27 years archaeology, Technical Editor technical editing Clarion Associates Ben Herman BS, Environmental Studies and 32 years regional growth Land Use Planning management and transportation corridor studies Connetics Jim Baker BS, Community and Regional 23 years transit operations Financial Analysis Planning planning MCP, Master of City Planning Susan Rosales BA, Psychology 20+ years transit operations Transit Operations Planning MA, Urban Planning planning Dennis Markham MBA, BA, Economics 20+years transit financial • Financial Analysis modeling 2 List of Preparers 10-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Table 10-1 List of Preparers (cont'd) Name and Project Responsibility I Education, Registration I Experience Connetics(cont'd) Smith Myung BA, Political Science and 15 years transportation Travel Demand Forecasting History planning and travel demand MA, Urban and Regional forecasting Planning ERO Steve Butler BS, Biology 13 years natural resource Wildlife, Threatened and MS, Environmental analysis Endangered Species Management Ron Beane BS, Wildlife Biology 29 years biological analysis Raptor Specialist MS, Biology Flatirons Marketing&Communications,Inc. Meris Delli-Bovi BA, English 32 years technical editing, Technical Editor environmental compliance, public involvement Hartwig &Associates Marvinetta Hartwig BS, Civil Engineering 22 years transportation Engineering PE (Colorado and California) design, specializing in highway and roadway design • David Dyer Technical Drafting 27 years design and plan Engineering preparation H.C. Peck Pat Bergman BS, Social Services 27 years right-of-way Right-of-way Analysis experience Phuong Tran BS, Psychology 5 years Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Analysis experience Hermsen Consultants Gail Keeley BS, Environmental Science, 36 years NEPA analysis and Historic Properties Regional Planning environmental compliance MS, Urban and Regional 18 years historic assessment Planning HMMH David A. Towers, Principal BS/MS, Mechanical Engineering 32 years transportation noise Rail,Transit, Noise and Vibration PE (California) and vibration analyses Task Manager • List of Preparers 10-7 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • REFERENCES .a. a. • ORTH I-25 EIS information . cooperation . transportation . Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 11 LIST OF REFERENCES CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). January 2000 - December 2002. Crash Records. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004a. Safety Performance Functions Intersection Diagnostic. April. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005a. Field Log of Structures. Staff Bridge Branch, Bridge Management System Unit. May 16. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2006. CDOT Design Guide 2005. Last updated April 2006. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2008. 2035 Moving Colorado—Vision for the Future, Statewide Transportation Plan. February 17. ETC Institute. 2002. Community Transportation Assessment Survey. Conducted on behalf of North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). December. ETC Institute. 2005. Community Transportation Assessment Survey. Conducted on behalf of North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). October. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2002a. Eastern Colorado Mobility Study. Prepared for Colorado • Department of Transportation (CDOT). April. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2008a. Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared for the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission. November. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1999. North Front Range Transportation Alternative Feasibility Study Phase II, Technical Report No. 3, Summary of Stakeholder Workshops and Community Input. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, and the Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC). August. Kononov, Jake and Bryan K. Allery. 2004. "Explicit Consideration of Safety in Transportation Planning and Project Scoping." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1897, Statistical Methods and Safety Data Analysis and Evaluation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). 2011. North Front Range Year 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2010. "Completing the Vision". Powerpoint Presentation. November 9. TransitPlus and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2003. Front Range Commuter Bus Study. October. CHAPTER 2-ALTERNATIVES Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU)and Jacobs. 2008. Transportation Analysis Technical Reports. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. • List of References 11.1 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) and Jacobs. 2011a. Alternatives Development and Screening Report. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU) and Jacobs. 2011b. Package Concept Plans. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU) and Jacobs. 2011c. Transportation Analysis Technical Reports Addendum. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. CHAPTER 3-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Land Use and Zoning Jacobs. 2011a. Technical Memorandum: Land Use Conditions and Impacts. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2007a. Denver TOD Economic and Market Study. Basile Baumann Prost &Associates. Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2007b. FasTracks Programmatic Cumulative Effects Analysis (PCEA). Social Conditions Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005b. CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects— Rev.3. May 27. Jacobs. 2011b. Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Transportation Research Board. 2004. TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the • United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Economic Conditions Cambridge, Systematics, Inc. 1999. Public Transportation and the Nation's Economy: A Cambridge, Systematics, Inc. 1999. Public Transportation and the Nation's Economy: A Quantitative Analysis of Public Transportation's Economic Impact, Washington, DC. Prepared with Glen Weisbrod Associates, Inc. October. City of Fort Collins, City of Loveland, Town of Berthoud, Town of Johnstown, Town of Timnath, Town of Windsor, Larimer County, Weld County and the North Front Range MPO. 2001. Northern Colorado 1-25 Corridor Plan, 2001. McCann, Barbara. 2000. Driven to Spend: The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses. Surface Transportation Policy Project and Center for Neighborhood Technology, Washington, DC. http://www.transact.org/PDFs/DriventoSpend.pdf. Porter, Douglas R. 1997. Synthesis of Transit Practice 20: Transit-Focused Development. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Air Quality Ayala, A., N. Kado and R. Okimoto. 2003. ARB [Air Resources Board] Study of Emissions from Late-Model Diesel and CNG [Compressed Natural Gas] Heavy-duty Transit Buses: Toxic Compounds and PM Emissions. California Air Resources Board. City of Boulder, Office of Environmental Affairs Climate Action Program (CAP)Assessment, 2009. City of Denver. 2007. Climate Action Plan. October. • City of Fort Collins. 2004. Air Quality Plan. Summer List of References 11.2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. City of Fort Collins. 2008. Climate Action Plan. December. Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) -Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). December 2002. Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area. Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) -Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). 2006. Colorado 2002 Ammonia Emissions Inventory. Curtis Taipale. Colorado Department of Public Health -Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE -APCD). October 2007a. Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Longmont Attainment/Maintenance Area. Colorado Department of Public Health -Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE -APCD). December 21, 2007b. Colorado Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Twelve Mandatory Class I Federal Areas in Colorado Colorado Department of Public Health -Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE -APCD). 2009a. Colorado Annual Monitoring Network Plan 2009 - 2010. June 30. Colorado Department of Public Health -Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE -APCD). 2009b. 2008 Air Quality Data Report. August. Colorado Department of Public Health -Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE -APCD). 2009c. CDOT, NFRMPO, and DRCOG, Regional Transportation Model Discussion, November 17. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2007. 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. Adopted December 19. • Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2008. 2008-2013 Transportation Improvement Program. March 19. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2010a. DRCOG Conformity Determination for the 2035 RTP and the 2008-2013 TIP. January. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2010b. 2009 Amendment Cycle 2 DRCOG Conformity Determination (CO, PM10, and 1-hour Ozone) for the Amended Fiscally Constrained 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the Amended 2008-2013 Transportation Improvement Program. January 20.Houk, Jeff. 2007. FHWA Personal communication. Email discussing nitrogen calculations associated with the US287, 1-25 and US 85 corridors. Jacobs. 2008a. Air Quality Technical Report. Prepared for the North 1-25 Final EIS. Jacobs. 2011c. Air Quality Technical Report Addendum. Prepared for the North 1-25 Final EIS. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2007. 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. December. Taipale, 2006; Colorado 2002 Ammonia Emissions Inventory, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division. The Sierra Club. 2004. Highway Health Hazards: A Sierra Club Report. July U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), and Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2006. US 36 Corridor Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Statement. August 4. • U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992a. Guidelines for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections. November. List of References 11.3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992b. User's Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2.0: A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections. November. U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PMZ_5 and PMto Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. EPA420-B-06-902. March 29. Whiteman, C. David. 2000. Mountain Meteorology - Fundamentals and Applications, Oxford University Press. Noise & Vibration Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002a. Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines. December. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1995b. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. June. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 Software.Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2006. Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 49, Sections 222 and 229. August. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006a. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2008b. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Noise and Vibration Technical Report. • Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2011a. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Traffic Noise and Vibration Technical Report Addendum. Harris, Miller, Miller & Hanson (HMMH). 2008. North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Rail Transit Noise and Vibration Technical Report. Harris, Miller, Miller& Hanson (HMMH). 2011. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Rail Transit Noise and Vibration Technical Report Addendum. Water Quality Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Colorado Water Quality Control Division. (CDPHE - WQCC). 2003. Final Section 309 Report, A Study of Colorado Water Quality Classification and Standard Issues under CRS [Colorado Revised Statutes] 25-8-309. December. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002b. Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004b. Drainage Design Manual. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004c. 1-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005c. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Water Quality Control Commission. (CDPHE -WQCC). 2006a. Regulation No. 93, Section 303(d) List Water Quality-Limited • Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). List of References 11-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment -Water Quality Control Commission. (CDPHE -WQCC ). 2006b. Regulation No. 94, Colorado's Monitoring and Evaluation List. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment -Water Quality Control Commission. (CDPHE -WQCC). 2007. Regulation No. 38, Classifications And Numeric Standards South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River, Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin. Online at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/requlations/wqccreqs/ 100238southplatte.pdf Colorado Geological Survey. 2003. Colorado Geological Survey Groundwater Atlas of Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication 53. Prepared by R. Topper, K. Spray, W. Bellis, J. Hamilton, and P. Barkmann. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff. Volumes I, II, and III. FHWA-RD-88-006; FHWA-RD-88-007; and FHWA-RD-88-008. April. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2008c. Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement, Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2011 b. Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report Addendum for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU) and Jacobs. 2011 b. Package Concept Plans. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1999. Performance Evaluation of Dry Detention Stormwater Management Systems. EPA Grant Number: C9994515-94. Online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/nonpoint/docs/319h/wm658cIo.pdf • Kayhanian, Masoud, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum. 2003. Impact of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations. Journal of Environmental Engineering. November. Trombulak, Stephen C. and Christopher A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14 (1), 18-30. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Urban BMP Performance Tool. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.qov/npdes/stormwater/urbanbmp/ bmpeffectiveness.cfm. Accessed: January 27, 2008 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Water Quality in the South Platte River Basin, Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, 1992-1995: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1167. Prepared by Kevin F. Dennehy, D.W Litke, C.M. Tate, S.L. Qi, P.B. McMahon, B.W. Bruce, R.A. Kimbrough, and J.S. Heiny. On line at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1167. Updated October 15, 1998. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Colorado Land Cover Data Set. Online at: http://rockvweb.cr.usqs.qov/frontranqe/datasets.htm Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). 2001. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Volumes I, II and III with revisions. June. Wetlands Ecotone. 2006. Field notes and GIS surveys. Boulder, Colorado Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical • Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. NTIS No. AD A176 912 Jacobs. 2006. Wetland Assessment Form List of References 11.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Jacobs. 2008b. North 1-25 Wetland Technical Report. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Jacobs. 2011d. North 1-25 Wetland Technical Report Addendum. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetland Delineations. Letter by Art Champ November 30, 2001. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento Corps of Engineers. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. USDA Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. L.M. Cowardin, V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-79/31 Floodplains Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002b. Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004b. Drainage Design Manual. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), 1995. Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas. April. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU), 2008c. Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2011b. Water Quality and Floodplains Technical Report Addendum for the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement. • Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2006. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 568 Riprap Design Criteria, Recommended Specifications, and Quality Control. Vegetation Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2001. Colorado Gap Analysis Project. Colorado GAP Data downloads. http://ndis1.nrel.colostate.edu/cogap/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Ecoregions of Colorado. (2 sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia. Scale 1:1,200,000. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado Wildlife Barnum, S.A. 2003. Identifying the Best Locations along Highways to Provide Safe Crossing Opportunities for Wildlife: A Handbook for Highway Planners and Designers. Colorado Department of Transportation, in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2003a. Guidelines for Senate Bill 40 wildlife certification developed and agreed upon by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado Department of Transportation. January. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005. Confidential unpublished sampling data from study area, provided by S. Albeke, Fisheries Biologist. September 26. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions • for Colorado raptors. February. List of References 11-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2010. Threatened and Endangered Species List. Available at:http://wild l ife.state.co.us/W ildl ifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Th reatened Enda ngered List/ ListOfThreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.htm. Updated July 7. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2005. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Environmental Review. Locations and Status of Rare and/or imperiled elements within the North 1-25 EIS Study Area. Generated October 28. ERO Resources Corporation. 2008. North 1-25 EIS Draft Wildlife Technical Report. Prepared for CDOT Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. ERO Resources Corporation. 2011a. North 1-25 EIS Wildlife Technical Report Addendum. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. Huwer, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sherry Huwer, CDOW to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18. Jackson, S.D. 2000. Overview of Transportation Effects on Wildlife Movement and Populations. Pp. 7-20 In Messmer, T.A. and B. West, (eds)Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Jackson, S.D. and C.R. Griffin. 2000. A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Effects on Wildlife. Pp. 143-159 In Messmer, T.A. and B. West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2009. Wildlife Species Pages. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available at: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. • Ruediger, B. and M. DiGiorgio. 2007. Safe Passage: A User's Guide to Developing Effective Highway Crossings for Carnivores and Other Wildlife. Produced by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. List of threatened, endangered, and candidate species by county. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Field Office. Last updated: July 2010. Available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/endspp/countylists/colorado.pdf. Last accessed: October 12, 2010 Vierra, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mark Vierra, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18. Wells, P., J.G. Woods, G. Bridgewater, and H. Morrison. 1999. Wildlife mortalities on railways: monitoring methods and mitigation strategies. p. 85-88 In ICOWET III International Conference On Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, Missoula, Montana, September 13-16 Threatened & Endangered and State Sensitive Species Breeding Bird Atlas Explorer. 2010. Hosted by U.S. Geological Survey. Available at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bba/index.cfm?fa=explore.ProjectHome&BBA_I D=CO1987. Accessed November 2010. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas 11 (COBBA II). 2010. Available at http://bird.atlasing.org/Atlas/CO/. Accessed November 2010. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2003a. Guidelines for Senate Bill 40 wildlife certification developed and agreed upon by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado Department of Transportation. January. • Colorado Department of Transportation. 2005d. Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy. Memorandum. March 4. List of References 11.7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 2009. Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy. Memo from Director. January 15. Russell George, Executive. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife. February, 2008 Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2007. Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Environmental Review. Locations and Status of Rare and/or imperiled elements within the North 1-25 EIS Study Area. Generated October 28, 2005. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2010. CNHP Tracked Bird Species. Available at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/Iist/birds.asp (updated 7/23/2010). ERO Resources Corporation. 2008. North 1-25 EIS Draft Wildlife Technical Report. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. ERO Resources Corporation. 2011a. North 1-25 EIS Wildlife Technical Report Addendum. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. ERO Resources Corporation. 2011 b. Final Biological Assessment: North 1-25 EIS. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. July. Huwer, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sherry Huwer, CDOW to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18, 2006. Knopf, F.L and M.B. Wunder. 2006 Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). The Birds of North • America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/211 Kuenning, R.R, and H.E. Kingery. 1998. Mountain Plover In Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. (H. E. Kingery, Ed.), Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2010. Colorado Division of Wildlife database, big game activities. Interactive maps consulted on October 15, 2010 at: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2008. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2009. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2010. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. May 7. Ryel, A. 2006. Personal communication from Aimee Ryel, CDOW, to Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation. September 2006. Sherman, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mike Sherman, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. June 19, 2006. South Platte Water Related Activities Program (SPWRAP). 2009. Memorandum of Agreement for Implementation and Operation of the Colorado Portion of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Plan (PRRIP). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Impacts to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Associated with FHWA Funding of CDOT's Routine Maintenance and Upgrade Activities on Existing Transportation Corridors • of Eastern Colorado. List of References 11-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2004. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. January. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005a. Letter to Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation Endangered Species Specialist, from Susan C. Linner, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Supervisor. July 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005b. Unpublished trapping database for Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Last updated September 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Website Review: http://mountain- prairie.fws.gov/species/plants/uteladiestress/index.htm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2008. Amendment to the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. February 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. List of threatened, endangered, and candidate species by county. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Field Office. Last updated: July 2010. Available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/endsop/countylists/colorado.pdf. Last accessed: October 12, 2010. Venner M. 2001. Long-range multi-species advance mitigation: CDOT's shortgrass prairie initiative process and benefits . IN: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 200-206. • Historic Resources Athern, Robert. Union Pacific Country, Pgs 133-134. Auer, Michael J. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service—Cultural Resources, Heritage Preservation Services. 1989. Preservation Briefs-20, The Preservation of Historic Barns. October. Boyles, B. L. (Billy). 1968. Tales (Some Pretty Tall) of the St. Vrain Valley, Volume One, Published by the St. Vrain Valley Press, Longmont, Colorado. Boyles, B. L. (Billy). 1969. The St. Vrain Valley . . . Its Early History, Published by the St. Vrain Valley Press, Longmont, Colorado, Second Printing June. Boyles, B. L. (Billy). 1974. The St. Vrain Valley . . . Its History-1900-1910, Published by the St. Vrain Valley Press, Longmont, Colorado. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 1993. A Cultural Resource Survey Along 1-25 Between SH 7 and 66 in Weld County, Colorado, (NH-IR (CX) 025-3(109)), November. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002c. An Intensive Cultural Resource Inventory for 1-25 Access at the Crossroads Exit East of Loveland, Larimer County, Colorado, by O. D. Hand, August. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 1996. An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey Along 1-25 Between 120th Ave. and SH7, Adams County by O.D. Hand. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2004d. Spanning Generations: The Historic Bridges of Colorado. • Colorado Farmer. 1949. Weld County Rural Atlas and Directory. List of References 11.9 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Colorado Historical Society. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 1997. Railroads in Colorado 1858-1948, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission, prepared by Clayton B. Fraser and Jennifer H. Strand, August. Colorado Historical Society. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2003. Colorado State Roads and Highways, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission, prepared by Robert Autobee and Deborah Dobson-Brown, January. Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2006. Issues Paper, March. Eberhart, Perry. 1986. Ghosts of the Colorado Plains. Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2006. Fort Collins Official Visitors Guide. Fraser, Clayton. Fraser Design/Hermsen Consultants. 2000. Documentation of Structures on the Valley Highway, Denver, Colorado, July. Fraser, Clayton. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Highway Bridges in Colorado 1880- 1958, March 30. Gelder, R. W. 1915. Map of the Irrigated Farms of Northern Colorado. Goetzmann, William H. Exploration and Empire: The Explorer and Scientist in the Winning of the American West, pgs. 55-57. Greeley Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2004. Greeley Visitor Guide 2004. Pg. 1. Greeley Tribune. November 13, 1995. Page 4. Halstead, Byron D. Barns. 1881. Sheds and Outbuildings. • Hermsen Consultants. 1999. Historic Resources Survey Report—Southeast Corridor: I-25 from Broadway South to Lincoln Avenue. Johnson Publishing Co, Loveland, CO. Greeley, Colorado City Directory, 1930, 1935, 1940, 1946, 1950, 1960, 1965, 1970. Johnson Publishing Co., Inc., Loveland, CO. Larimer County Colorado City Directory, 1969, 1972, 1976. Johnson Publishing Co., Loveland, CO. Weld County, Colorado County Directory, published by, 1969, 1973, 1976, 1981, 1986. Larimer County Farm & Rural Directory, 1947, 1961, 1966. Lewis, Tom. 1997. Divided Highways: Building the Interstate Highways, Transforming American Life, Viking Press, New York. Longmont Area Visitors Association. 2006. The Official Visitors Guide 2006, Pg. 4 McWilliams, Carl and Karen. 1995. Agriculture in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area 1862-1994, Historic Contexts and Survey Report for City of Fort Collins Planning Department, March. Mehls, Carol Drake, and Mehls, Steven F.1988. Weld County Colorado Agricultural Context. Noel, Thomas J. All Hail the Denver Pacific: Denver's First Railroad, The Colorado Magazine 50 (Spring 1973), Pgs 91-116. Noel, Thomas J. and Sladek, Ron D. 2002. Fort Collins and Larimer County, An Illustrated History, published by Heritage Media Corp., Carlsbad, California, Overton, Richard C. Burlington Route: A History of the Burlington Lines. 1965. Published by Alfred • A. Knopf, New York, Pgs. 163-173. List of References 11.10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Rocky Mountain Directory Co., Colorado Springs, CO. Greeley Farm and Rural Directory, 1947. Rocky Mountain Directory Co., Loveland, CO. Larimer County Directory, 1966. Rocky Mountain Directory Co., Loveland, CO. Weld County, Colorado Directory, 1961. Rocky Mountain Map Company Atlas, 1940. Rocky Mountain News, November 3, 1866. Shaffer, Ray. A Guide to Places on the Colorado Prairie 1540-1975. Shwayder, Carol Rein. Weld County Old and New, Gazetteer and Dictionary of Place Names, Prehistoric Indians to 1992, Volume V. Sloane, Eric. 1967. An Age of Barns. Sloane, Eric. Eric Sloane's America, published by Wilfred Funk, Inc., copyright 1954, 1955, 1956. St. Vrain Valley Historical Association. They Came To Stay, Longmont, Colorado, 1858-1920, Centennial Edition Watrous, Ansel. 1911. History of Larimer County, Colorado, Courier Print and Publishing Company, Fort Collins, Colorado. • Weld County Farm Atlas and Directory, 1956. Weld County Farm Atlas and Directory, 1966. Weld County Farm Atlas and Directory, 1970. Weld County Farm Atlas and Directory, 1980. Weld County Farm Atlas and Directory, 1981. Weld County Rural Landowner's Guide and Road Atlas, 1970. Weld County Rural Landowner's Guide and Road Atlas, 1984. Weld County Rural Landowner's Guide and Road Atlas, 1995. Weld County Rural Landowner's Guide and Road Atlas, 2002. Weld County Farm Directory, 1947. Western Cultural Resources Management, Inc. 2006. Addendum to a Cultural Resource Inventory of Portions of the Proposed State Highway 402 Expansion, Larimer County, Colorado, January 30. Paleontological Resources Rocky Mountain Paleontology. 2008. Paleontological Resources Technical Report: Interstate 25 North Corridor Environmental Impact Statement, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado. Hazardous Materials American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. ASTM Standards on Environmental Site • Assessments for Commercial Real Estate. E 1527-05. List of References 11-11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Colorado Department of Natural Resources. 2006. State Engineer Water Well Construction Rules. Division of Water Resources. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005e. Right-of-Way Manual. Chapter 3, "Right- of-Way Appraisals, Procedures, and General Information." October. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005c. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Environmental Programs Branch (EPB). 2005. Hazardous Materials Guidance. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2001. Exploration and Production Waste Management 900 Series. November 30, 2006. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2008d. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Hazardous Materials Modified Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU). 2011c. North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement Hazardous Materials Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Addendum. Geocal, Inc. 2004. North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement Abandoned Mines Mapping, Preliminary Report. Parks and Recreation Adams County Parks and Community Resources Department. 1998. Adams County Trail Map. Adams County Open Space Plan. http://www.co.adams.co.us/documents/ paqe/trailsonly map.pdf • Boulder County. 1999. County Trails Map. Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. April 22. Boulder County. 2002. County On-Street Bikeways Plan. Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. July 5. Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department. 2004. St. Vrain Trail Master Plan. January 6. http://bouldersheriff.com/openspace/manaqement plans/st vrain pdfs/sv trail mp/ st vrain trail mp01 04.pdf. City of Boulder. 2007. Transportation Information System GIS Map. http://gisweb.ci.boulder.co.us/website/pds/Transportation qisweb/viewer.htm. City of Brighton. 2006. City of Brighton Comprehensive Plan. June 7. http://www.brightonco.ciov/eqov/docs/1149698820761.htm. City and County of Broomfield. 2005. City and County of Broomfield Open Space, Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan. February 8. http://www.broomfield.orq/openspace/ Open Space Parks Recreation andTrailsMaster Plans html. City of Dacono. 2005. City of Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan. January. http://www.ci.dacono.co.us/docs/Complete CompPlan.pdf. City of Fort Collins. 2004. Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan. City of Fort Collins. 2006. Fort Collins Bicycle Map. http://www.ci.fortcollins.co.us/bicvclinq/pdf/bike map 9 14 05.pdf City of Greeley. 2002. Greeley Parks and Trails Master Plan. January. http://www.ci.qreeley.co.us/coq/OrqPaqes/63/Report-opt.pdf. City of Lafayette. 2003. Lafayette Comprehensive Plan. • http://www.cityoflafavette.com/Paqe.asp?NavID=653. List of References 11.12 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. City of Longmont. 2002. Longmont Open Space and Trails Master Plan. May 7. http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/openspace/masterplan.htm. City of Longmont. 2003. Longmont Area Bikeways Map. Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan, p. M-1. July 8. http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/Planning/lacp/documents/LACP 2006 update.pdf. City of Longmont. 2005. Longmont Bicycle Vision Map. Longmont Multimodal Transportation Plan, p. 16. July 26. http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/planning/trans/pdfs/final plan/bicycle map.mmtp small.pdf City of Loveland Parks and Recreation. 2005. Bikeways Map, City of Loveland. September. http://www.ci.lovela nd.co.u s/parksrec/B i kewaysM apRevised 11-22-05.pdf. City of Northglenn. 2007. Trail Map, City of Northglenn. http://vail.northqlenn.org/website/parks/viewer.htm. City of Thornton. 2003. City of Thornton Parks and Open Space Master Plan. October 15. http://www.cityofthornton.net/park/adobe/Plan Contents With Cover.pdf. City of Thornton. 2003. City of Thornton Proposed Community and Regional Trail Network Map. Thornton Parks and Open Space Master Plan, p. 5-7. October 15. City of Thornton. 2004. City of Thornton Parks and Trails Map. Winter. http://www.cityofthornton.net/comd/adobe/public parks trails.pdf City of Westminster. 2001. City of Westminster Trails Master Plan Map. June 25. City of Wheat Ridge. 2006. Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Master Plan. • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2003b. Bicycle/Pedestrian Program. CDOT webpage. http://www.dot.state.co.us/BikePed/. Colorado State Parks. 2003. Colorado Front Range Trail Project. Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003. Denver Parks and Recreation Game Plan. April 1.http://www.denvergov.orq/Default.aspx?alias=www.denvergov.orq/GamePlan. Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. South Platte River Greenway Trail Map. http://www.denvergov.orq/Portals/474/documents/South PlatteMa p.pdf. J.R. Engineering. 2000. Town of Mead Proposed Sidewalk/Trail System. December. Larimer County. 2001. Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan. Larimer County Open Lands Program. http://www.co.larimer.co.us/parks/openlands/master plan.pdf. Larimer County. 2003. Upper Front Range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Draft.http://www.larimer.org/engineering/ufr2030/ufr2030.pdf. Larimer County. 2006. Larimer County Transportation Master Plan. October 18. http://www.co.larimer.co.us/enciineerinq/TransMasterPlan/Transmst.htm. Northern Colorado Regional Communities. 2001. 1-25 Corridor Plan. May. Shapins Associates, Inc. 2002. Colorado Front Range Trail Corridor Plan. April. Town of Berthoud. 2001. Town of Berthoud Master Land Use Plan. http://www.ci.berthoud.co.us/planning/Land%20Use/020Plan.pdf. Town of Berthoud. 2001. Town of Berthoud Parks and Major Bike Trails Map. February. • Town of Erie. 2002. Town of Erie Parks and Open Space Master Plan. October. http://www.town.forterie.ca/WebSite/tofeweb.nsf/0/0EFA0F2EC5EB0748852571 DO0047AD 98/$File/Fort%20Erie%20-%20FINAL%20MASTER%20PLAN%20-%20OCT%202006.pdf. List of References 11.13 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Town of Firestone. 2006. Firestone Draft Master Plan: A Community in Motion. Town of Frederick, Parks, Open Space, and Recreation. Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan, p. 10-1. http://www.frederickco.qov/frederick.aspx?id=832. Town of Frederick. 2004. Town of Frederick Parks and Open Space Map. April. http://www.frederickco.qov/uploadedFiles/Frederick/Government Services/Planning Depart ment/Comprehensive Plan/parks open space map.pdf. Town of Mead. 2004. 2004 Comprehensive Plan. September 27. Town of Milliken. 2003. Johnstown/Milliken Parks, Trails, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. June. http://town.milliken.co.us/default2.asp?active page id=174. Town of Timnath. 2005. Timnath Trails Plan. April 27. http://www.timnathcolorado.orq/documents/maps/Master°/020Trail°/020Plan.pdf. Town of Timnath. 2005. Timnath Comprehensive Plan. http://www.timnathcolorado.orq/documents/compplan/Comp°/020Plan.pdf. US 36 Regional Bicycle Map. http://www.36commutingsolutions.orq/Uploads/bikelinks 36.htm. Weld County. 1999. Structural Land Use Plan Map. Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Weld County, Boulder County, City of Longmont, Town of Erie, Town of Firestone, Town of Frederick, Town of Dacono. 2000. St. Vrain Valley Open Lands and Trails Plan. CSU/DOLA Community Technical Assistance Program and Colorado Open Lands. July. Westminster County. 2004. Westminster Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2004-2009. http://www.ci.westminster.co.us/articles/ParkRecBook.pdf. • Winston Associates. 2001. Brighton Open Space Plan. August 1. Farmlands Census of Agriculture. 2007 United States, Summary and State Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 51. Issued February 2009. Updated December 2009. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Soil Data Mart database. Meyers, B. 2010. Personal communication with Bill Myers at Natural Resources Conservation Service. August 19. Steiner, A. 2010. Personal communication with Andy Steiner at Natural Resources Conservation Service. November 1. Energy Federal Transportation Administration (FTA). 2006b. Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria. Environmental Benefits Worksheet. May. Available at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FY08 Reporting Instructions - final - 5-15-06.doc (accessed March 2007). Public Safety and Security Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2002. Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities—Technical Report. FHWA-RD-01-158. March. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2007a. GradeDec.Net. System for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Investment Analysis. http://gradedec.fra.dot.gov/. Accessed April 10 • List of References 11-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Office of Safety Analysis. 2007b. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/. Updated June 19. Accessed April 10, 2007 Genova, D. (2006). Personal communication with Dave Genova from Regional Transportation District. 2006. Construction Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002d. Construction Manual. July. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2002b. Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005c. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006c. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC). 2002. Reducing Diesel Emissions in the Denver Area: Report to the Regional Air Quality Council and Air Quality Control Commission. CHAPTER 4 - TRANSPORTATION American Public Transportation Association (APTA). 2005. High Gas Prices, Emerging Technologies Spur Transit Ridership Increases. September 26. American Public Transportation Association (APTA). 2008. Impact of Rising Fuel Prices on Transit Service. May. • Carter Burgess. 2004. Existing Conditions White Paper prepared in support of the North 1-25 EIS. August. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2007. Safety Analysis of Alternatives. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2007. 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Developing and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones. Chapter 4.3 of the Guide. December. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006d. Safety Management Information Statistics. National Transit Database. (NTD) Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2002b. Weld County Roadway Classification Plan. June. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2002c. Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan Mobility 2020. June. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU). 2008a. Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) and Jacobs. 2008. Transportation Analysis Technical Reports. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) and Jacobs. 2011a. Alternatives Development and Screening Report. Appendix G. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) and Jacobs. 2011c. Transportation Analysis Technical Reports Addendum. Prepared for the North 1-25 EIS. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) and others. 2006. Draft Larimer County Transportation Plan. August. • LSA Associates, Inc. 2007. City of Loveland 2030 Transportation Plan. April. LSA Associates, Inc. 2010. Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan. List of References 11-15 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2006. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) and others. 2007. North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. PBS&J and others. 2004. Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 2004. February. Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Wilbur Smith Associates. 2007. North 1-25 EIS Draft Toll Scenario Traffic and Revenue Study Methodology. CHAPTER 6 - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2010. North 1-25 Project Cost Estimate Review— Final Report. July. CHAPTER 8 - PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2007, as amended. 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. Retrieved August 2010 from http://www.dreog.ord. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). 2007. North Front Range Year 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig. December Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission. 2008. Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig. January. • • List of References 11.16 Hello