The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112392.tiff NorthNORTH I-Z5 EIS - 25 information . cooperation. transportation . A A a [ pv1 [ 011 [11011118 StatemeRt _ ._. . _ _. , 1c� i , • sgeketer: _ - "w ' r r 44' ► I. et ••--••••• .I, g t 6 •i fir. 4w `•lit u ', a• i .'iii Jg� y per r I -:!I[•y VT -.�. . '�• ' • 4 �I _ Pt• e1 '. ,�i .7 en J►-' _ � �:� — \\ tilt I I ) # . A. _rier...,;k ,-r... ,......-c-fl• -- . .. j = 1JT y� • +t<}. `Cif • -. _y . • ti.:: .lien*' P lele 'C`moot. -lle�t•ti-ox is;`,„,ri. ✓aevrt 5S"!�-. 4'- oil Jr, .1 "l .1 ; •> L , O r1n 3 2011 -2390 an' 2011 -2391 US Depo•rmen+oE L•an;po•rar�- 2011 -2392 A Federal Highway August vAdministration 2011 -2393 • N oRTH 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 16 Paleontological Resources • • ao\‘ ()YID, Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section provides a summarized description of the existing conditions of What's in Section 3.16? paleontological resources within the 3.16 Paleontological Resources regional study area, and anticipated impacts 3.16.1 Affected Environment on these resources corresponding to each 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences of the North 1-25 alternatives. The scope of 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures the paleontological analysis included literature and museum record searches and a field survey. The Paleontological Resources Technical Report (Rocky Mountain Paleontology, 2008) should be consulted for greater detail. 3.16.1 Affected Environment The Front Range foothills and adjacent eastern plains region of Colorado are well known for their geologic history and paleontologic importance. Scientists working in this area have conducted numerous studies in geology and paleontology, some of which are now considered classic works, and others that are on the cutting edge of modern paleontological and paleoenvironmental research. Many important fossil specimens, including numerous holotypes, have been collected in this region. These include the type specimens of the dinosaurs Stegosaurus armatus, Diplodocus, Allosaurus, and Apatosaurus ajax, which were collected during the late nineteenth century from historic quarries near the town of Morrison. • These and many other fossils from the Front Range and eastern plains region of Colorado are now housed in museums in Colorado and throughout the United States. 3.16.2 Environmental Consequences No-Action Alternative There would be no impacts to paleontological resources resulting from the No-Action Alternative. Package A Package A would result in varying degrees of ground disturbance associated with construction. Unmitigated excavations in Pierre Shale, Fox Hills Sandstone, Laramie Formation, Denver Formation, and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits have the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. Generally, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the greater the likelihood of adverse impacts on paleontological resources in formations that are known to be fossiliferous. The potential for adverse impacts increases with the known paleontological sensitivity of each geologic formation. Excavations for highway widening and interchange improvements are typically shallow, and mostly occur close to the existing grade. Excavations associated with rail construction are also mostly shallow in areas like the regional study area that are largely of low topographic relief. Larger and deeper excavations, such as those for building foundations at commuter bus and commuter rail stations and associated facilities, bridge abutments, underground utilities such • as pipelines and powerlines, and light standards along the North 1-25 corridor, have a higher potential for adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Paleontological Resources 3.16-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The Denver Formation has high paleontological sensitivity, and could be impacted by construction from E-470 to US 36 (A-H4). The Pierre Shale and Laramie Formation have moderate sensitivity, and the Fox Hills Sandstone and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits have low sensitivity. These units underlie portions of the regional study area. Most previously recorded fossil localities within the regional study area are located in the Pierre Shale between Fort Collins and Loveland, especially the Hygiene Sandstone Member in the vicinity of Fossil Ridge. Construction along the existing BNSF rail-line between Fort Collins and Longmont, and along 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 (A-H4), has the highest likelihood of adversely impacting paleontological resources, especially where cuts are necessary to expand highways, interchanges and rail alignments. Package B Package B would result in varying degrees of ground disturbance associated with construction. Unmitigated excavations in Pierre Shale, Fox Hills Sandstone, Laramie Formation, Denver Formation, and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits have the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. Generally, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the greater the likelihood of adverse impacts on paleontological resources in formations that are known to be fossiliferous. The potential for adverse impacts increases with the known paleontological sensitivity of each geologic formation. In terms of construction-related ground disturbance and potential impacts on paleontological resources, the highway components under Package A and Package B are similar, except that under Package A structure upgrades (A-H4) are proposed to 1-25 between E-470 and US 36, • and under Package B (B-H4), an additional tolled express lane is proposed between E-470 and US 36 (B-H4), with upgrades to highway interchanges. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would result in varying degrees of ground disturbance associated with construction. Unmitigated excavations in Pierre Shale, Fox Hills Sandstone, Laramie Formation, Denver Formation, and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits have the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. Generally, the greater the amount of ground disturbance, the greater the likelihood of adverse impacts on paleontological resources in formations that are known to be fossiliferous. The potential for adverse impacts increases with the known paleontological sensitivity of each geologic formation. The highway components included in the three build alternatives would result in construction- related ground disturbance and potential impacts on paleontological resources. Generally, the higher the number of lanes and interchange improvements, the higher the potential for paleontological resource impacts, depending on the area's known paleontological sensitivity. Transit components under Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would impact paleontological resources differently. Under Package B, transit alternatives consist of bus rapid transit service and the construction of associated infrastructure. Ground disturbance associated with the construction of commuter rail lines and facilities associated with Package A and the Preferred Alternative is anticipated to be significantly greater than that required for bus rapid transit facilities associated with Package B. It should be noted that disturbances associated with commuter rail facilities would be noticeably less under the • Preferred Alternative than Package A. Paleontological Resources 3.16-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. In terms of construction disturbance, Package A would disturb 2,877 acres, Package B would disturb 2,959 acres, and the Preferred Alternative would disturb 3,224 acres. Therefore, Package A has the lowest potential for impacts on paleontological resources, followed by Package B, with the Preferred Alternative having the highest potential for paleontological impacts. All build alternatives have a higher potential for impacts on paleontological resources than the No-Action Alternative. 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures Construction Monitoring Continuous monitoring or spot checking during construction is recommended for the Pierre Shale, Laramie Formation, and Denver Formation (or portions thereof). Paleontological clearance with no attached mitigation stipulations is recommended for the Fox Hills Sandstone and Pleistocene-age surficial deposits. All paleontological monitoring work will be performed by a qualified and State of Colorado- permitted paleontologist. Paleontological monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units and microscopic examination of matrix to determine if fossils are present. This work would take place during surface disturbing activities, such as excavations for the construction of roads, railways, bridges, underpasses, and buildings. Depending upon the paleontological sensitivity of the project area based on its geology and the types and significance of potential fossils that could be present in sub-surface sedimentary deposits, monitoring will be scheduled • to take place continuously or to consist of spot-checks of construction excavations. Paleontological monitors will follow earth-moving equipment and examine excavated sediments and excavation sidewalls for evidence of significant paleontological resources. At the request of the monitors, the project engineer will order temporary diversion of grading away from exposed fossils in order to permit the monitors to efficiently and professionally recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays to project schedules will be made. The final paleontological monitoring report should provide all necessary paleontological data. This includes, but is not limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation-monitoring plan, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected (including an assessment of their significance, age, and geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, an appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications, and a copy of the project-specific paleontological monitoring and mitigation plan. If any subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found by construction personnel during construction, work in the immediate area will cease immediately, and the CDOT staff paleontologist will be contacted to evaluate the significance of the find. Once salvage or other mitigation measures (including sampling) is complete, the CDOT staff paleontologist will notify the construction supervisor that paleontological clearance has been granted. Recommendations 1. Potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources within the North 1-25 Final EIS • regional study area can be reduced to below the level of significance with the implementation of paleontological mitigation. Table 3.16-1 summarizes the paleontological resource mitigation measures recommendations by geologic formation. Paleontological Resources 3.16.3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 2. When the Preferred Alternative has been selected and the project design plans have been finalized, the CDOT paleontologist will review these documents and determine the extent and depth of ground disturbance associated with construction of the proposed transportation improvements. Based on these findings, mitigation measures will be modified, as appropriate and additional site-specific or project-specific paleontological studies may be recommended. 3. The majority of privately owned lands within the regional study area and some segments of the BNSF right-of-way were not surveyed for paleontological resources because access to these parcels was not granted. When the Preferred Alternative is selected, the CDOT paleontologist will determine which of these parcels, if any, could contain exposures of potentially fossiliferous bedrock and/or surface fossils, and should be surveyed prior to construction. 4. If any subsurface bones or other potential fossils are found anywhere within the regional study area during construction-related ground disturbance, the CDOT paleontologist will be notified immediately to assess their significance and make further recommendation. Table 3.16-1 Summarized Paleontological Resource Mitigation Recommendations by Geologic Formation Formation Location Approach Pierre Shale, Fossil Ridge, BNSF corridor south Monitor all excavations during construction Hygiene Sandstone of Fort Collins and north of Member Loveland. • Pierre Shale All locations where unit occurs Spot-check large excavations for significant within regional study area except fossils during construction. Immediately notify Fossil Ridge. CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. Fox Hills Sandstone All locations where unit occurs Paleontological clearance with no attached within regional study area. mitigation stipulations recommended. Immediately notify CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. Laramie Formation All locations where unit occurs Spot-check large excavations for significant within regional study area. fossils during construction. Immediately notify CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. Denver Formation All locations where unit occurs Monitor all excavations during construction. within regional study area. Pleistocene-age All locations where unit occurs Paleontological clearance with no attached surficial deposits within regional study area. mitigation stipulations recommended. Immediately notify CDOT paleontologist if fossils found during construction. • Paleontological Resources 3.16-4 • Noun I-25 INI EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 17 Hazardous Materials • • Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section provides an overview of properties (sites) in the project area with What's in Section 3.17? recognized (known) or potential soil and 3.17 Hazardous Materials groundwater contamination (environmental 3.17.1 Affected Environment conditions). The identification of 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences contaminated sites is necessary so that 3.17.1.1 No-Action Alternative they can be avoided when reasonably 3.17.1.2 Package A possible, or appropriate mitigation 3.17.1.3 Package B measures can be implemented. The 3.17.1.4 Preferred Alternative presence of hazardous materials is a 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures 3.17.3.1 Right-of-Way Acquisition liability concern for any potential right-of- 3.17.3.2 Contaminated Soil and way acquisition and can affect the project in Groundwater terms of worker health and safety, cost, Management schedule, and agency and public relations, 3.17.3.3 Removal of particularly if these sites are not identified Structures/Obstructions prior to construction. Therefore, an 3.17.3.4 Regulated Material assessment of site contamination in the Clearance 3.17.3.5 project area is an integral part of the CDOTMine and Gas and Plans Safety a 3.17.3.6 Mine Landfill project planning process. Management In support of this EIS, a corridor-wide • Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (MESA) (FHU, 2008d) and MESA Addendum (FHU, 2011c) were performed to identify sites in the project area with the presence of potential or recognized soil and groundwater contamination from hazardous materials. The term "hazardous materials" is an all-inclusive term for materials that are regulated as a solid waste, hazardous waste, or other wastes contaminated with hazardous substances, radioactive materials, petroleum fuels, toxic substances, and pollutants. Areas of contaminated soil and groundwater must be identified to evaluate several aspects of the proposed improvements, including responsibility and management of contaminated soil and groundwater, engineering options to minimize and mitigate impacts, activities associated with right-of-way acquisition, and worker health and safety during construction. The methodology used to identify sites with recognized and potential environmental conditions included a limited visual inspection of properties adjacent to the project corridors to locate activities that could potentially result in hazardous materials contamination, a review of historical information for the project corridors, and a review of current local, state, and federal environmental agency databases to identify known contaminated sites. The methodology is further discussed in the MESA (FHU, 2008d) and MESA Addendum (FHU, 2011c). • Hazardous Materials 3.17.1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.17.1 Affected Environment Sites with the potential for large-scale contaminant migration or a known existing or past release of a hazardous material are listed in Table 3.17-1 and the locations of these sites are shown in Figure 3.17-1. These sites were identified in the MESA as having a high ranking with regard to potential site contamination, indicating that contamination (existing or residual) from hazardous materials may exist and could have an adverse impact on the project alternatives. These sites include National Priority List (NPL) or "Superfund" sites; sites on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS); sites in the Colorado Voluntary Clean Up Program (VCUP); and state active and historical solid waste landfills (SWF). A detailed discussion of these sites is included in the MESA (FHU, 2008d) and the MESA Addendum (FHU, 2011c). Numerous sites with moderate indications of a potential or known existing release or past release of any hazardous materials (see Section 3.17.2) are also present along the project corridors and are discussed in further detail in the MESA (FHU, 2008d) and in the hazardous materials consequences section of this EIS. Table 3.17-1 Summary of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination Site Address Type of Site Concern I-25 Corridor(Preferred Alternative) • 10575 Site being addressed under Colorado Department of Melody Dr., VCUP' Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)VCUP for Northglenn known existing or past release(s)of hazardous materials. 555 W. 106th Ave., VCUP' Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for known Northglenn existing or past release(s)of hazardous materials. I-25 Corridor(Packages A and B) 120 Site identified as needing corrective action after NE Frontage Rd., CORRACTS2 release(s)of a hazardous waste or constituent into the Fort Collins environment from a RCRA facility. Commuter Rail (Preferred Alternative and Package A) 3536 Known existing or past release(s)of hazardous S. Mason St., CERCLIS3 materials and potential for large-scale contaminant Ft. Collins migration exists. Site is designated as No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP). Site at College Ave. Known existing or past release(s)of hazardous Ft. Collins Trailer, CERCLIS3 materials and potential for large-scale contaminant Ft. Collins migration exists. Site is designated as NFRAP. CSU campus— College Ave./Pitkin z Site identified as needing corrective action after Ave., CORRACTS release(s)of a hazardous waste or constituent into the Ft. Collins environment from a RCRA facility. 317 Potential presence of methane gas and other landfill West Prospect Rd., SWF° Ft. Collins gases. Potential soil and groundwater contamination. Site at College Ave./ • Willow St., VCUP' Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for known Ft. Collins existing or past release(s)of hazardous materials. Hazardous Materials 3.17-2 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.17-1 Summary of High Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination (coned) Site Address Type of Site Concern 116 Site identified as needing corrective action after E. Foothills Pkwy., CORRACTS2 release(s)of a hazardous waste or constituent into the Ft. Collins environment from a RCRA facility. 302 3rd St. SE, Site identified as needing corrective action after Loveland CORRACTS2 release(s)of a hazardous waste or constituent into the environment from a RCRA facility. 4809 Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for known S. College Ave., Ft. VCUP1 existing or past release(s)of hazardous materials. Collins 120 VCUP' Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for known 9th Ave., Longmont existing or past release(s)of hazardous materials. 15th Ave./Lashley St., SWF4 Potential presence of methane gas and other landfill Longmont gases. Potential soil and groundwater contamination. 11939 Site being addressed under CDPHE VCUP for known Sugar Mill Rd., VCUP existing or past release(s)of hazardous materials. Longmont Known existing or past release(s)of hazardous 844 Weld County Road 7 CERCLIS3 materials and potential for large-scale contaminant migration exists. Site is designated as NFRAP. Commuter Rail(Preferred Alternative) • 2100 Highway 119, 2 Site identified as needing corrective action after Longmont CORRACTS release(s)of a hazardous waste or constituent into the environment from a RCRA facility. 266 E.29th, Site identified as needing corrective action after Loveland CORRACTS2 release(s)of a hazardous waste or constituent into the environment from a RCRA facility. Commuter Bus(Preferred Alternative) 3815 Known existing or past release(s)of hazardous W. Service Rd., CERCLIS3 materials and potential for large-scale contaminant Evans migration exists. Site is designated as NFRAP. Notes: 1 Voluntary Clean-Up 2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action 3 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Solid waste facility/landfill • Hazardous Materials 3.17-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 3.17-1 Location of High-Ranking Sites with Potential Contamination LEGEND 17 / • High-Ranking Hazardous Materials Sites Location: ON COLLEGE AVE/PTCOLLNS TRAILER o Cities & Towns in Regional Study Area ~ -L I Regional Study Area / ,,,,. Wellington 'N.,. ^/ Study Corridors 1 I N. 85 /\/ Highways / up a CAMPUS -COLLEGE AVE I PITKIN AVE Et, \/ Arterial Roads /I Pierce Fort hllins Location:120 NE FRONTAGE RD g3 City Boundaries I . Ault R / Location:COLLEGE AVE / WILLOW ST I 27 Location: 317 W PROSPECT RD i 1imnatn _ Location: 116 E FOOTHILLS PKWY i I Staverance Eaton !, 287 Windsor ' i Location: 3536 SOUTH MASON ST I T I" _ lucerne tt L392. -- --- I Location:4809 S COLLEGE AVE • Greeley h 34 1 t 263 - Garden City 34 Location: 266E 29TH ST i Loveland Location: 3815 W SERVICE RD _ 7Location: 302 3RD ST SOUTHEAST ' [vans I Johnstown / Salle Campion o t / `� e� 85 i I8�:Be • Milliken / / I Gilcrest / all fa ,,rLocation: 16TH AVE/LASHLEY ST i • I Mead % Platteville i .___ i Location: 120 9TH AVE' = Lonymrxlt Location: 11939 SUGAR MILL RD lone Vollmar Q i Location: 2100 119 HWY ///Ct • ' Oluestoneit Nivrot 7i 01 ruder tck 1 7Z-- Location: 84.4 WELD CNTY RD 7 %j O Dacono upto i'_' " c i Gunbarrel Fort I I l l-- o Isle f i 761 a Wallenberg Boulder i i se Lafayette► WI \ _ ; t louis�ille Brighto I 7 . EJre g II I `N -•Superior d / � \ Broomlieid •Eastlake --4/ .,\ 1 -N•.� Northglenn j •x36 / r Location: 10575 MELODY DR` o ihomton / 1 / / ' ' — -- /� �, Location: 555 W 106TH AVE (',‘ ' /'---fr”---.4"44� / j Denver I V Ivr •� 0 2 4 6 8 10 ! \ (.-- -- I ' ' ' ' I Miles North ,_ 0 , / .).\_ \ Hazardous Materials 3.17-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Oil and gas facilities (existing and planned), including oil and gas wells, were identified within the project area using data from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Website, which was accessed in July 2010. These facilities were identified within 100 feet, 100 to 500 feet, 500 to 1,000 feet, and 1,000 to 1,500 feet from the project area and summarized in Table 3.17-2. Table 3.17-2 Summary of Oil and Gas Facilities Within the Project Area Screening Distance Number of Wells Highway Less than 100 feet 1 100 to 500 feet 63 500 to 1,000 feet 85 1, 000 to 1,500 feet 82 Commuter Rail Less than 100 feet 3 100 to 500 feet 50 500 to 1,000 feet 59 1, 000 to 1,500 feet 24 Commuter Bus Less than 100 feet 0 • 100 to 500 feet 0 500 to 1,000 feet 10 1, 000 to 1,500 feet 6 Express Bus Less than 100 feet 0 100 to 500 feet 5 500 to 1,000 feet 16 1, 000 to 1,500 feet 7 Oil and gas explorations, development, and production wastes (e.g., drilling fluids) are produced during primary field operations and the potential exists for subsurface releases that may not be observable at the surface or along the associated gathering and transmission pipeline. Chronic minor leaks that would not be detected by inventory control can also release over time into the subsurface. Thus, all oil and gas facilities/associated transmission lines that could be impacted or disturbed constitute a potential environmental condition. A portion of the regional study area is located over the northeastern half of the Boulder-Weld Coalfield. The mined portion of the Coalfield extended approximately 22 miles on a diagonal from Marshall in southeastern Boulder County northeast to the Firestone-Frederick-Dacono ('Tri-Towns") area of southwest Weld County. Most of the coal was from underground mines that were accessed by vertical shafts and almost entirely from multiple seams within the designated Boulder-Weld Coalfield. Mining took place from the surface to over 400 feet deep (Geocal, 2004). • Hazardous Materials 3.17.5 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 S EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Subsidence and collapse are a potential concern as the project proceeds to design. Mine- related surficial and near-surface problems, principally subsidence and collapse, have affected numerous commercial-municipal developments, transportation rights-of-way, pipelines, agricultural irrigation operations, and some residential properties within the Boulder-Weld Coalfield portion of the regional study area (Geocal, 2004). Significant specific routes with known mine surface features, undermined areas less than 400 feet deep, and/or past surface problems include: ► 1-25: From Weld County Road (WCR) 8, north to between WCR 16 and WCR 18. Similarly, for the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line: Located two miles east of 1-25, and through Dacono-Frederick-Firestone. Also, east-west SH 52, from three-quarters mile west of 1-25, east through Dacono to WCR 15 (Geocal, 2004). ► Boulder County Road 42 (Jasper Road): From one mile west of Erie, east to WCR 7 (2.5 miles east of Erie), as a significant east-west tie between 1-25, County Line Road, and US 287 (Geocal, 2004). Also, related as potential east-west ties in this area: UPRR and related coal line spurs from 1.5 miles west of Erie, through the town, and then splitting northeast to 1-25 and southwest to one-half way to 1-25 (Geocal, 2004). 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences To determine the consequences of the No-Action Alternative, the two build packages (Package A and Package B), and the Preferred Alternative the properties from which right-of- way would potentially be acquired for each alternative were compared with the sites with • potential environmental conditions and the sites with recognized environmental conditions that were identified in the MESA (FHU, 2008d) and MESA Addendum (FHU, 2011c). These sites include medium and low-ranked sites that were evaluated in the MESA (FHU, 2008d) and MESA Addendum (FHU, 2011c), as well as sites with potential environmental conditions that were identified during the site reconnaissance and the review of historical land use (e.g., evidence of storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials). Medium-ranked sites include RCRA hazardous waste generators with reported violations, sites reported on the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list, and facilities with leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). Low-ranked sites include residential sites or commercial sites with activities that do not require the use of hazardous substances or petroleum products (greater than 55 gallons/year), RCRA hazardous waste generators with no reported violations, facilities with above ground/underground storage tanks (ASTs/USTs) with no reported leaks or spills, and sites reported on the Facility Index System (FINDS). These sites have minimal indications of an existing release, past release, or material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into the ground (soil), groundwater, or surface water. Sites to be acquired for right-of-way (partial or full) that have potential or recognized soil and groundwater contamination are considered direct hazardous materials impacts (see Table 3.17-3, Table 3.17-4, and Table 3.17-5). Right-of-way to be acquired may be modified during final design, which may affect the hazardous materials impacts. Sites that will not be acquired for right-of-way, but have potential or recognized soil and groundwater contamination and could affect materials management or worker health and safety are considered indirect impacts. • Hazardous Materials 3.17.6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.17.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative is a conservative estimate of safety and maintenance improvements that will need to be constructed if the build alternatives are not built. Major and minor structure maintenance activities from US 36 to SH 1 and safety improvements at selected locations from WCR 34 to SH 1 are expected to occur. The No-Action Alternative does not include the acquisition of any sites for right-of-way; therefore, there would be no direct impacts associated with hazardous materials associated with this alternative. Indirect impacts are not associated with right-of-way acquisition but are associated with potentially contaminated sites that could affect materials management and worker health and safety. Indirect impacts identified with respect to the No-Action Alternative include the potential to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater during structure maintenance activities that require structural excavations or during safety improvements that require ramp terminal widening (e.g., 1-25 and Prospect, 1-25 and SH 392, 1-25 and SH 402). 3.17.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.17-3 summarizes information on properties with potential or recognized environmental conditions with regard to hazardous materials that are associated with Package A proposed highway or transit improvements. This information is organized by build component. • A total of 38 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A highway components. A total of 58 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 2 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A transit components. Several of the high-ranking sites identified in Table 3.17-1 are impacted by the project. A detailed discussion of environmental conditions of these sites is included in the MESA (FHU, 2008d). • Hazardous Materials 3.17.7 d 2 pue any m °1 ..ISd A in .`d81 X X X X < > X X 0 N e w o F c -o m 0 C CO ,� � ¢ c if) m °: m a o w co WI x o m o 3 c o O E O E d � o c Cum ac c c o �j c y N _ To C •AN, �C �.0. L N C E C frTS ° o 13 •E' � o : of a o c Cu CO O a ai o ao m a, La r w O U .cu_ s c) N .J 0 r- -O a) -O a) - O ,6E C V N C -p 0 .C O c 0 C N .mO u .E ° L N 20 a 12 co 7 • -(13 c s C N J J CD o H 'm � O O) ° CO 'o w -C E co ® a c o) ri C ¢ o C a) z. o o c N 3 w0 (0 . t m w O a) i) as m ° L 1 O c I) H -O O O .c J .c N " C O J co C C To- r— w co (n i._ C H c ) CO Y E O Cu a3 7 O) D D ._ L( C N .w-� y D C •' y a) co— O C W o ? om rn ° as x 3a E c y 2 'N Cu it y 15 m_ r o N -O :N =° g o o E E N aaioC"oo j a,) o2 °oc o m v co o) m o > a7 O O c_ C c Ho c .N c92 DY c o c E E c E ° v ✓ C a) N C U 'O N V j w a) a) -O O o f• (° Cr CD To gy J ° C co o >. t N C a o U) N O Z (n L N a c .5 � 30 wc- � 7c 2a 0 O) a E - Za C0 m � • 0 s- 2 0 ti > 'p �:° J. C a c 0 w „/ U o aa)i N LL w c o O f � e° .c 2 U w C - minor O c a) N o o - (° "O" a 0 ri inc oo wEw coa) a) LO m yE oco c (E N c a -O O)O O c a) w C) O 0 O_ 'C a N c -O d "O D 9 p V N •0O :° c Cu 0 C a) .N Cu a a a H co• 2 4- -a) o5 u t m a m Fr y "0 N C o o w Q :° N -OJ a) To_ 'O (n UC O 'E N C) w ac ny � °o (n O u C ow oa � c ZH o aai a) ID 13 c' 3 ° m �WcocLL• yw � mEmLLDa0 °ac 0 w a) -C co co a) ≤ D co a) co a) .c N ° a) N o C oco-i% o Z o a) a)a. C) O5 ._ ._ — c co O) . C a C w0 O O o O'O C w O w W "O c y° N f0- 0 0 Y w N C W 6 E . C) coO M (6- cmO N co O C C C N L a) (� a) en, c . a (' -o w O `o Cua m oC oN cc QEN .a) "c,_ m � SN - 2) wm m - �' G ao Qo ooa° = cr°n .Jcw pa) N � t— —u) 2) oa) at (3 ° N ° ° co o X (0 -C o CU CO U 0 ° O (° O) CO co tq in Or .4 Lei u_ c) o)2 o a) J se) w0J U' CC Xin 2Ei0a O To ch c ) a) -o "o -o -o -o E co C CD a° N N N N N Et c a `> c a; $ Y o O O O v w ti a° CC 0.° CC CC CC CY a° a° It i C. O w N C W N M 0 w O O VO 1O Cr) N CO N lO r` COrti ) N O O O) O O O O O O O C V O O O O O O N. O LO LL c (rj W It � O N O O Or N N M N N • d c E O � CO N N V N CO .C O. L Z co co^ N- co in co co co co W coc e° 1~ • ,,*4,S1gH o G pue dWW I- ., 9 **ISd 2r xvSI x x x x X x x X x x x o � W o p c c ca U) _ N C v N o 3 N F3• O • ` O O c 0 O c O N 1-6 cO Y (o N O ca U W � c .G CO = ro } M- O O c w co a /r ••r c0 0 L CO co O COC ` (7) D , C "� t C C E N r �O c c O r" C N 3 N Mt C y0 C O O o •c O 0 c o o .C 3 a o N = o O) U Y C C ro 3 5 •C as c o o c CO ? CO D N9 O C 0 L as 0 0 E ro rr o Y (0 ai a) c A.O aJ ci 'E o C E p) c c0 N G= co O 6 C D C 7 N N N O N O '' n O N E cc 0 U w c 0 O) 0 U Zvi - c c - Co 1... C "" � 0 o Co co O aa)) a) c c E D 2 m ro C — m c°)-E W +- 0 ro m ° .. 0 c 5 co c °) 0) E "0 3 Zia_ 4) aa) o m 3 3 E . 0 .-, 6i a, E O c .N ' 0 ° y c a vi C vi w co Y D N O O C 0 -� • °a o •Q� � E0 ac) 0 c v c `- ro • 0_ OO U N •� c Wt.') a) n U O ) CO O > A c en t.) a c`0 �0 Y - 6 L j CC0 Cl. N a) CO N •..= O 0 3 as i o i a N c p t fl. •O 6 go_ i n C .C 6— (9 O 'O C �+ • cow i a) To 03 CD fo � c0 3 oC° oY men 00 0 D) �O o NO 0 :1:: r6 O N O w O C L c N C y et n m c m 0. a � 0 c Q 0 Q c c o o � 0 f° ;3N ON Y H on .05 -2 -v c >'a = a ov .0v ro c os MvD c 2 0)) c E C 0.c a co • cc aa)) c c >, 0 N V 0 o N 0. = N co 2' E Co O U co N c0 0 O H C O 0 = � c O to °) C O O) - y •Z °) c a COO .- D N rn N 0 roc Co •5 0 'v a) .C co c • •� _i i o > 0--r, o e «° 1 0 .6 N .o n•o 0- 6 °' > a) �o ti ,_ .C Q co c) �; .C • ro coC C _ -C gip '.— CO v 0c� LO N ui•0 C a" u) a) ;r c) U O cv N O o 3 3 w = a) @ 0 0 0 c 0 CD �v CD c , CO 3 10 0 Co Ch 0 CD Co QQ O N ' C7) m 0 n O c U CLIc v m QE 0. a ' Z C crop 1- v '- o@ C ~ ro ?`c C 0 . co N U 7 v C Co O 0 u) a• 0 E O O c co 4. w a 0 o o k 0m 2Qi >,TO_ oro a) Q 30 ≤a aca≥ o) o o a; w ,T$` E >-..c; m o a) o w; uroi ° v N N E voi n a QEmtu.. = ECITAMEQECC6 0. C7C7do).5 E - O R Cii c ' E c c d c « m �o o is �o o m �o �o .c pp .1.. V ....7. -.«.. tr. C ...= C 47. 47.. 47. C o CO 5 c 0 Cl) 0) 0) 0) a) 0 0) u) Q) 0 C O O O 00 o 0 0 0 O 00 V 0 Cl- 0. CL s a a a a a a CC c IS CNI y 0 0) 0) — co CO % — 00 0) El cn en f. 0 0 Q0 1— (0, 0 0 0 CO Cc) co 0 0 00 0 O 0 0 0 N O Co v 0 0 F- CO 0 0 co 0) c1) 0 C � � ;� d 0 0 1— 0 0 O N O C.) M 0 • N C E 0 0 M 0 O O N- N M 0 r LL Q M V O E 0 0 h 0 ti LC)CO IN CO CO y CO N- 0 0 N LO N 'k- W CO 7 a E Z coO coO co co co co CO 0 CO0 0—,11 CO CO I~ ...SBH • `s o pue dWW irs co a ca xxISd c A E ,'4 - c *VSI X X X X e • a. iN-), W n L' m • c O - - N N c m o O O1 c a)a) .- OI °) n' O O ° 0 = .. a N T v°i _O (0 ≤CD N C as .,_ N Z _, r O 0 `o c O Na Nm N LaC .a..1CUOm 'cN coY z m N C ,'��^ p N m o. a T 0 c c 2 p E D E E _ mu;c7 • u m N a) U '°ID � � cmE c c � � tn � � m ,L°, Nym O -° o b came O. o � w a Ex �^ 3 ° a>icYa° y CO 2 c c o m 3 0 3 ° a in a) ° W a 2 E L N 5ar W O N c 0 ai C OO c co C ' N c N N 3 O 03 O c0 N N co 0 3 € .�C co'O .D C• m L m m c Y o .ti co N N . C Y O y a) j O` .8 O 0 E 0 D > N C m .0 L c Y• N a E 0 L L O N N a m -o c U W ° ° m a° c° c) >� E � o -omc " � � aNi r •rm y • o c ° V) m m u ° o m ° = c 3 ° c a 3 a N moo C °, o -o `w° ooc cca-a,, Nm m O � . O N N N m L ._ m C ° m U w O co 0 15 N at o O co C a) ' J L U OI CD N ° .a). '≥ O r c CD O O LL LO c O) U H 'O — ° c a) m 0 O C N N °) c U c N r "O U m .N m .Y c co C C o.-° c N >� C m o r m > N ..-- c N "C Hcc $ m ° o E .D_ Y ° joc3itm ._ cc mm m . • j ° $ SCE La ° a) -c -o ? i� r — LU ° c° = - co m C N a) . CD d O a) T = m - O ea -o �H m :° '' o. 0c ...t E � � 3ao v ^' .. m O CO N c m ° o c c ur > c E 0 -° co c ''-' NoQ o � m _mLo40 ') -° ° gym °c oN EL co ri O a a "O U > (0 W N L J 1a O N = cu-. ° U co co a) r c c a) ca o ° C W -°° `0 d O. a) ro o —. ocoo U E3m 'Ecydc 'aN >, cEl Em CO 2 CO a) Q O N cc ui— m N m - m O. a) .0 m-° X O w O X ≥ co m N « O N C 1] a/ y a N (0 N - m >.- •'3 ) 'ELL y > .N r- O) H a) c a) — O_= L J c m N V O C ua)j 0 E C a c CJ 0 a N N 01 N y y co C c m a) C O m O ° Q C O CO m C C C a C C C N Q O m .-. C 'Zoo a) N to '? m c c > O -- a) m . o ' m — cE CA w OI m O) 2 N c as L L O u ° a m O_ c E a U o 3 Tamp co o .°. c )0 yami3 me UEooE a) � > a) a -o al u0i Uo U N m O a U N C C m N. m a) r O CO r L C m 0)) O. N 60 = O NO O N a) O N .c 'O c E O L m r rn a) N C 0 O LO mO) 2 C ) O) LL J 2' 58- 8 8E -E., 45 2u7 r N w L 8 p m c a) ° Q c 0 N N c c m (a d J C OO co O c c a) 0 4 CO a) a) o u W U K CC d d It r Cr o c N O r or LTJ 1% co CV OS OI N. V N o O 0 0 O C 7 '-1 N C E N O O M • LL Q M C E 1O _CO O LO N m Q � � co � a) a v z co ao m m ro H • rd ...S'8H c pue dyyyy O x x co ..ISd X x _Ft .-. *VSI x x in 4 e • y c w W u o0 Y _ _ — ~ CO_ co w O ro O ro 'AU) o c � o Zo j o -o � '- c �o • J ` > m .o. O > c w O E o -O Q .m-• w ro H ` 'O m �° a) E y NCO O `c_ G1 -O o -O y N w C O) .O = '..0_ 0 76.- Z o• U � CO a ° w m XWtE ' 0 w o rn 3 a? m E • • Ew � mww >, airn -o o co .c 3 w c 0H m, Q22 U — C a 0 3 co 0 o o w m 0 c c y it 0 )cco o � c 'n crcn - m) at° t0 z d., cmw o) cJ � • 2m. 2 ' C � E `oJc 6! E p C C O O m i� n lE° X O tJ6 O (° O G E d c m .- O) O O ≥ 'C a 'O IC Z O) O- C O 0 5 am UJCTO N o t m 'y o a m o. o)0) a) m E m 0 > `o > u o y o � E m m Co m ° r w o W O O N N - `) YO OO) in C -0 N O M V) w N .� O t_ °) C c a N ' c N O O- O r m N N C C O J °o w ,- z am) cmo wok ° o � a� � Ew `o N = w a TD J 2 d .c w > O)t °) O c T O C C N -O „5 co >,-,... To- c -O c -O OD C O O w O -O -ID CD a U m X w w4-• c " 00m N N o -oO -a a) c • c3a) raio J 70 w o m a J O „T, a°+) L C N CO w `�" i) O N J O) 0 • Per Ca CD a) E O c0 o ;; � o > O ? o 3 <O EE 'o Z: C o o j mL 3 o) aoi ; � ;9 `hod o y ro m o L 0 O V ? w C N N O C ° 9 oi to i+ 0 O Z o -aF' r N C � C J c O w a W E 4 w -O J M Q wr O p J O B '~ .d O � � O a aO '''..' w _O (v 0 a CE ≥ a x N o C m W O C C �CO t L. N 0 15 U a) 000 O 0 w w l0 O O c J N -O w 4 CO I w w o w CE E 3 a) - a a`) — a mro -o •C 3 ooc —°w0xa� � O ° Evora ,_ m - c •v -O 3 ° a .c O > -O C E co m p) c a1 C 3 C O - O Co m - w J C H cc)0 00 CO OD C -E m w o w N me Ta NO C o a o 2 t w a (F, OL LN O N N >, (1) C '' E (n 'OU E t -O O _—r a; 3 0 •C m w L' r .m.• -O m 0 - to m N = d C -.- OO c = a) coU E ) . o Oa3 a) co TV = .2 y3 ,. 0 wa .C -0NmE (� :5 N 0 ? w C N F-N O Y > c -O Ea N c .- y Z . ea��ddtl O O c 'v) -, Or-5 � 'y (n o- m � a aaE co� 0 -2 � cc m E O '° co c d Eo N N N C •- C C 0) O .O O O O) R 5 C O O o0 WU CC CC CC c, ea ✓ 44 ✓ c c o o v 0 N W w M O . 0 0 0 O ti, w w O O O c o d •- a o o O • ocE 'n (0 (O CD Wa CU a ? z LO m (O it H *WI SBH X X X • C pue dWW ta o co *and N «_C YVy SI X X X X X X X X in 4 v 'C r‘lY I• 4W 0 0 t o o c I— d '' 0 o ° 3 m o Y L ) t 0) r'-c, c co N .N C co -o 713- N O) O o 0o c °� c ° CO CO oo c .C F-' is > a7 � � c0 To oE c a) cc° -0 c o U 0 ? g � m` E ° o ° > ° o c .3 I °'- 0 — c mcmoo c c m w w in I- 03 0 i) °) m C o 7 Z N 0m € C - < c g ui tie N CO c@ 0 O 0 N C a) c a O a L J E 3 .0yyE o0° 02 o y oo) C m e- o � 73 4 °) m 0 Lo O i.., ? J 7 L C O O o C C Q 0 H - •._ 0 C V) U) N U —. O O ® E 0 •u) .._ o o t M a) r DE o — — m 0 W m � ca) co °) 'cL m m �� Co_ E a v ,o =' gE 'oa) 0 > r d m o0W 00 0 4 N > 0 c O 0 f0 3 U 7 0 O0 0 o I- 0- "- 0 •0 N 0 U° @ Ora -0 aa)i O 0 0 co o• CO__. Y E o c u a0.0 cin co co 0 nc� a) mmomm a) 7 0 boa) ° c c '? ar ai c o ° '`� o) 0 E o F O a) 0 • 3 U 3 C O CO ? c 7 D 9 o c 0 0) � � b � o � � a odm2 o c c o oo E ° 'o Pp Yp — oD cm0 of '.C et oc ° Ca) 0YoD Lc o) 00 co- 0 o- m � om .SF � om a c c om � La-°i ° x CU+. o o y ° cn .- — Co 0 )n o) 0 w a 0 co co • H Noo .3 ? o m As � N C °6 Ws 0 o O d o y c 0 ^Dal = 06 a) o 0 3 m ° o ° y oa ai o a > t > CU 0 0 � cE- 0 CI . CI) 7 c a") N I— a ° y 16 .v 2 i) u) 2 c0 0 co o 0 CU C ' `° m < `myoSZQCQ i_ a) m7 "O. Qa •.- o a. co 3 c as-a o ° a) O N .0.. 0 +m' N "O C co co c m r C • �y U) j a-0 p C a) .t = Z 00 0 -0 0 H 0)s 0_u w c°/) _ so CD CD Z ni G CC N a C N 12 'O 0 0 W Or Cr cod O .9 OD4OLL aN 0 0 W E E ca C I a) 'O ID ID E C a) co a 0 = C TO N a3 COCN lo OD 0 C C C O C O° O co > c o a) .o. .0.. U uW V O o o O a a s a. a d a c 0 0 co N 0 0O 7 CO 7 O O N O 0 0 W y M C ` 00 0) 0 0 0) r o 0 c 0) t� —y c O 0 a v o 0 o N M LL Q M d E 0 M N N M CD M M • )) a Z o ro o COc° m .- N--rm .M- r m F • i ...S'8H Iii o Poo dWW r. _rn ..ISd .vSI X X X X XX XX X X X X o tri r- W o O N c c o v - O �o V) C N CD N f6 3 C C W O O O o m E' N C @ V N O C L@ O Z `c N d E y O @ p N O m vi a) N .LY o J C U a a t C N C O a 0i a O m - "O m N a C O N 0 o a) m -2 E m a CO m 3 = y ° on o U w m C O r O W N - -0 ^+ O C N C a CO a C Y y @ f C C 3 0 y r m N m o 5 3 c Y sr- CO C a) a) c E 0 N C .0 0 D - m < N O) O o a 3 '5w av cY v, 'o Ecco E Ey 0 0 0- O to c m c y 0 N O C O 0 co a c @ a -p r ≤ ? a. N 0) m m c — m w r N. v co N •= C o �° a C E o 3 moo aS C < O 0 0 0 m m m M O NO O O) O ) t w C o )a C 0 r a 'c u) 4C � _ , T- m W .> m .0 c a - N 6 ) It 3 a) @ c0mw 2 '0 a) O 'O N a) D C m Co c 00- 32 N 0c OC m ' m ' CO d — omm0 to N '0 C a�0i m CO y m ai m y °) :Er y ,a`± o � "� E o y p 0 ccD _ .o - m coE m � aC aciw 7Eac E "' V CL C a) C C 0 J .� w d E 0 '6 N .w U) to N 76 >. 0 N E •0 y N N "00` N °) •tll r a U C C .N °) JO d • .- 3 N L cm- .O. U O) r c E C U C To Z m C C a) O f 'J a) Q m a) N N a .= 00 0 an= 00 00. 0a .N„ O C O m w )4- et i..i C CO O m a c co m r V w a 0 N -0 'O m C 0 0 r v `�' m O E C J 0- ._ C +' c 1.3 — o N a N J O m O) N a) C N L C a) "O p 3 m '4 F zm oo -5m 0 Y r Eo co co co a) > a) C t t o 'p m a d a m N 3 m m e . m o-< = E P+ O CO 0 -o AE t y. °c tj -a as 0o = a_ - = C 2 o Z C rJ fn - - -0c ._-cc U) a) a) O �. .�i J m J C o Ccm was E O O N • N o °O y0) 0 owa � ' o a) r .=m mOi— m � 0 -O 'O c C a) O. C C N m 0- a) c co 0 2 0 co CO C -O 0) N y O) O m— 0 0) a1 m 2 a< 2O O) w O a co L O N 'm0 r CO N tO N N O CO E C1- 000 C d- r C T ' — N J W O. N T 3 (a') m e 0 N N "0 E r n to 0 J •f0 a m m 0 O N iii 0 O C O 2 O Y y '- t O E2 O «) C m N 00 C ra 0 m 2 DI— w F D > a Q O y < EO L Wm ,— v 2 E Z m CA C of E c Q o m m m m m m m m m m m m J C C CCCCCCCCCC C bt a) a) 0 0 0 0 a) m m a) a) m )0 C O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O w c.) a a a a a s a s a a a a m c 0 0 0 0 N NO 0 0_ 0_ r 0 r _0 O N �. r C 0 0 0 0 O) CO0 IA m rn y m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 W 3 M INC• 0 or T FE, 0 O) N 0 0 ON N N N CO CO CO TO O) N Ti = -0 F- m r N r N N N N 0 0 N N C J H E c E 0 2 � E n m r m CO N- rN- 0 • a ¢ ") a : Z O o z 0 CON r o � � r r r � a a o r 0) ... A m I~ ***Slag • o pue din' x x co rn ..ISd X x '_ 2 *VSI X X x x X x x X X X X X O P V V/ N V Y = O N W at a p )�1 0 0 co �r 7 U mZ o ai v c N C 0 Q •C d « C CO o 0 0 sb 'C N _V O U 0 O (0 N O ° N ° m g r c 2 v a 'b m N C "O N C 'O U al l0 0 D m c O -0 N N_0 m a) -o oi 7 N O N O N O p ai N C O co O .N ca a U co O 3 U C C 7 r0 N ° a TL m ..i 'O m 'y >,C O N @ U N c y `o ma +�' O > C 7 0 '- = N Cl 0) i0 0 = 0 O C M = W v = C E 2 O a) H N N m o 0 N m O O 0 -'. fns m Ep .- m 'X Ea) m Uw `O C a o N E T) co cy avi a000 � 00a) 5 Oo a) o p m .� oa) � o tmo)c6 0)) as E. `mo y G rn°- 12 O ,C 0)p co IL o not 'p r c 0 o W O J C o CO 0 0 o c v a .c 3 ca a V b O• O y a y00 C N CO = 10 CU m 'om v c UN 7 7 .N o «? = ro 0mmm ¢ o 00 o NC G .N ' C c _ m ._ C ,._ c V C bq zHm 3w op0ao -pm cI— _ — c .O us c m '0 t0 0i m N .- O 7 CO O) _ 'U re 'cis m v -0 Do O 0 -o O o o C '> C0 • D T a7 m m o) N J O a) N > .O. r0 - 'O O CI m e ._ IX t` C C r 'O t .a.. a) y C ONNO p = Z Co "E ... 0) m O r N N N igt .- • MI m > r O) C _0 a. y LL a) T,5 as r rn >. > b o m � m - t N N —pc - 3 � ao � E .Jr 7 -0 " c c .- b so o c c E m 3 c 3 m t° � ` Uo o f t) `0 0 cr -o 0' yo "E" ..c o ooh aim F- W � E o D -p 'om 4I$ �i OLi-s 6- ' 0) m l0 CYO 1O r U N CU N V L C E o N 0) 0 m Y c) U U = 01 r`p E 0) N c = -0 c a p = c o H — = a � aCi 7 c a�i °c' E H co n cop c m m 0 D ` co N n c N a7 c 7 N C0 au; 0 X O C 0 O O co O �' O LL > t co t co N a) a U N t`0 3 = L N o f0 'C 15 ai ai co F- a '- O . N a c o y o o CO 7m o � ? CD aN o rar22 c fa .- m 7 ON t 0 0 A 0 o a mp00) NN a a�i `am � ° 2 LT m m Cr O. o o.172 a or 7 E 6 0 o C f- o ≥ a m o N N on o- o 0 64-i -c00 co t6 0 y - a)o om ° mp � N ° � ° g EnExaE LO 0 E O N C > @ U C t6 m 0 7 C a U o 7 000 0 O etO LL 7 Y [en CC z o rm u. - 0 Q m N X Ll .C LL I -o Li Li 5 To Cr 0 a 0 N a) s C 0 'c a) To N C N To To N To To N wO O C _ = p C C C C C C C >C O m m m o m m CO m m m m W Co CC ao O. 0_ a) ap 0- CI- ao ap O. a v it V. Cr M N CO 0 0 0 0 N O N 0 co CO N CO N A 0 0 0 r r 00 0 0) O 0 0 m m W N en a0so- R p) N O r r rN ° M CO 117 O CO N CO CEO C p ).y C 1= M M CO M Q) O) Oa) 7 CD r r r r m • LL Q M R ? Z r r r r "t CON n h r n CU 0) O) O) O) O) O) p en E. S ,.S'8H 70 c pue dWIN m 4.4ISd 2 4!Sl X X X X > XXXx xX X XX ' e in b I w o C of c0 O a) O N N A '� c u c c °i °o. O R. cA N • C u) co) j w. io N. 2 co 'O U Q E 0 ON) E n con ton a L r _ c 'O . 0 C Cl- L Z .�i L f0 fl ro u0) (p O N O as it >, .` to to U O cm co N Z C I3)+% O U a 0 C N L OO. C o a °D E C C a "O y 0 OO .C (.2 0 fEU .. O N N co co c (o U a) W -O a) 0 E o a) a) ton a, C >' co O) O) o 0 a) c 0 E o) (co a w m ccoo c`o co a a≥ >, 0 a) c N c E C • N O O O L E 0 00 C O L �+ N IA L Vi a) p E CO p a) O a) ao c 0) c v, c o a`) o c`o .• E O v c c co o 0 a O N ..._- ...4N U co Y Alc0 0 O • a) CNi U O L O C L CTo W • a ac L L p m ' L o 3 p E c -t - "C3 E f0 U) to L 3 c i C V) co 0 0 0 a) a) p) ,ca O O 2 C 0 t O .� a) a U T "- "- C c «. c o E D -o (0 a ;= to to co :: :a -c I_ 6 a) 60 v a o T E E C 0 c w co c CO N a) to o o co > ≥ co E (O) u) D p) o ro .co d c m a) c) o o s fn a? N }? c C) c E o Zr) a O W T 'O F To JO .y 0) c O _ 3 3 o i° u, • CJ � _ce C O N N O c vCD O J ` C C a � ti �" w 000) L co co N o f 0 O' 'a O Y 7 r ro • C V) C C E c0 c .. .0 O N e")73 1:5 -cE >scu.4- E ai • IS)w c c Jo 3 aoi coif `n rn coi v) Ai Z 4D m cC (�`9Caicc0a°i v cooZo0�,. p 0 a) a D D N Y c co co a) .C c a) C L O ., E O co C _ L ..) a V) . .� P.4 O "E U frol .> ..' L .� w L N a 0 a) 0 C a ... c c co t ro co C N V . . . T, C = U)) 0 ro -5 O O` co 0 -° Ia <0 Y N C C a0) p. m 0 0 5 N as a7 C .17'3 4) Q) W C •C •C C u) a) J 'p a) L O u) cu 4- O 0 O- 8 -0 0 j ui j = ≥ .J. , 0 p O C ro cCo ≥ 0 O = O12. Lo w a a) o a`> v).c c a) c � >, e - � cn .Q a a)` 0) � 2 E o U) O y E Y O t t.) t U Y O C O y CC E 2 O 0 O .� y G u_ D1_ � a . ateQOC.9QccoZCCciivoiQaQwa0i co E To Z c 1 G c 8 • m To m CO CO CU CO CO CU To To To To To c c c 'a C CCCCC C C C C C CO bA > C a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 a) o a) ) a 0 bl c o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 OO O OO fel wt) a s a s aaaaa as a as U et 1^ CI . O C T T co) co N co) mr (O O O (O T T N o O O O O () O r O O '- O Is V M O O O co N +� CO O O O O 0 0 0 O) O O O O O O H cO 0) CO O T O r (O T O � O N- Cr) CO W M U ` O O LO O T N r O M to V O C 3 1••I L C E r r T T T Cr) QJ Q) �) Cr) 0 ir. < efi co 0 O a 12 z in L.O o) o c) CO rn rn CO rn T '- O) O) O) O) CIJ cd ..,SBH • o AUe dWW „,sd r, ,,... _~ .VSI x X X X X X X X X X X X C 0 • W ---c 0 O .>. ah �i To o `r > •C CU Cl) •� -p 0 a E O a O _ ' °' c o oO L cos f- Es C (0 C> -c (` 'p 3 Z S -yr c0 U a •� (0 CI) • b O b O O it m Q, c aj a c c Y C ci> to C C (0 C Y -C Cn p c0 C .C c V E O O N O a L to CU oo .. V) o .. C (0 .` C) a, .- N E U O 'C 8 ti O Vi (o ; • Q C .O c co CT ai V iiiE w �O co F;1 c a) 0 CL 03 E o � � (o Em .- vi b6 "'" .41(f) L N ti O C C N (NO O L C U w U L ` CAN a CU -0 m L LL TO O w �. Cl) CO C to O C L C • .C E 2 O E2 -_ "C3 N fl O C C y L C 0 CO M 7 O. .≤ O. CL) v) Er a ° 3 a o c rnE �� O m •N a or N -O N Y C v N L O 2. O b4 _c C Q c N N (0 ccO C 3 O L to V (0 � O L E y �' O. � I:_' V � 1J cA d O O N E = 0 C 7 w •V E N O CO > C O' 70 C l0 �i y N O _ ! Q .C .... N W N w a C O C O U O C 3.C Uj RI N • = ,_ O J+-0 Y 'O Y ia .112 N co 3 O EC37 C ti C C i U C C CO (0 O C t � O i- . ai .. C C 0. N Cl_ C = C ` vi .O ( a c N a.rO N O a :4 L•is s E t >'io ~ 3 a) v a) °� y i$ rn O c C •c CO O EC) O •- O 6 Cn vi co 4) 0 3 V 3 _i ? Q Y E � r � aa)) c > C > c x C Q CO . •Ccc oo ,- c � Q co > O ra = a _co CC ow �c �c __ E 3 co co (� Oo C N co C ro C ra rn U _O)L C L •-• — CL),_ 6. a C Z °p N CV C 3 a > °a -0 .f0 O •C C -C .3 7 aL. .- o oa O v C0 c U) c (3 v N N O Cl) o rn O N (a s au c`O a w w Pi a Er) co o (a E a o E w (o c O Ey) .0 c <�o a rn -c o � O> ' o (4 03 CA E C o. c0 ,9-iw0 w jai ccn ai c) 0 _j >, Uo o `.i., ui 6 N a) 0 no(0 o -V L 2 (o U C U G y r. .- V V E ° E C 0 O O V CU .a N .c f0 E a T CU ` O as t, N CU 'X C O O C .0 caO) 0 7 0 0 0 O` O O (V O (No D (naDacoLL � LLDQaQaag (6 � (nu_ UaLLLLLL E E io 0 c Q oE I 0 = To 5 Tom ca 76 To Ta F m L C C C C C w • ar c c c c c c c bA > c Cl):> a; m 4 m m a; CD 0 co CO CL CI. CL a a a CI- CL a 0. a 0- ,- co eiS r C (f) CO r N) r o O CV CO - r N- CA 03 N 0 O O W y M _ v d a rn O O 0o C v v COn (moo O C3 �- r r M (') Cr) CO M 0 CO 7 t\ i c E CO tO M M 10 l� U) l[) LC) Cr) 01 .0- RI C GI 7 CV M CV r O C) O O r r r r it < M CL Z c rn rn rn (r) 1- V '- col ") u) a, rn CI) 'Crrn A ets • Iii ...S)8H o puedWW X rn ,' g ..ISd .VSI X X X X X X X X X X In V li-i r2 y � I.7..I o C To C u) u; ai u co > O C U N q m m y j o O @ O c 2 O ocnN O C 3 T _ a C Y a) z c.- 'g '�WO O a m C U .C TO C 4O N �i N ul N O C .@ ul N 0. C N ° CO L C) C N N in O 0] v L C) N C) i0 U . a) _ c co a) V N C C J O 0 J C V y 0) O. CO a) � m CO 3 D m 0 -o N E o m c o o c o c _ co ..+ E C a) O) N N a a C O co N ° E d 0 A c ° C U N ° C N L `n N ? ° 15 ° ° J N C U 2 L O a C N O Q q o ° > m Z u a O- 'zi o f O N o) r u) L ° )p N J _° C N , N a) L .C C C N N O N lO 'C CO C TO C O (S7 O L O> a s 'O-j a a) J. O � N a 2 Z "0 c .a N oy omC@ t c' m oai o.) c c 0a,CO 6 ≥ > co -15 ≥ coo of " ul a •" l9 '° V � C O C N O n o co N C) a To OD E m ° . co m �° u) mo) ° o o --Noon O CV in " .C N C C O 'C 0J Q o "cu• C co = a L_ O L_ O L_ L_ = J c c cu co co L ° O N C o m e- 'F) N ZEAL . C 2 N C -2 O C) O C a 1� co m >' vi .c -o '0 3 � 3ai 3 .3 '- CO nc°i , 2) 05 oac a .n O m N12 a1 lO 0) CCL (O co C o m Y o a) a) m ,n C . 3 — C w o = C y ill C V C C U C J J -C ° a) -o f- o U a =c c co o)�° m e rn °i-o°� c ° Y E c to -o °Ty o r mN fl �T2� 2• m ._ aa)i D2r .° y y O. m C C L C C m . _ a) C C CO a o m tO G) CO N CO a) CO L CO O .� .«5• O 3 u; 3 C ° o 'QE ao aE a c F- E a o U ° o) m c a ° � E — o E 3 9 ° o f cc' a! O o a) O C a) m 0 co L co 0 a) C o '° a) C C 6 6 4.4 o •- u; - L E u; EL' E — E - oCui — = CO CO C!] a C a N 3 a) )n N O N a) u) N N C CO o N O O c a) +„ 'C O . U U Q¢ N U ea_ Q C ¢Q J U E C -C N o u) aa)O to o0 MTE. CuQtEU °) U -°CUC 3uiE° 5 ° ma` aocnca m Ru- .C Q a LL E r .E a ce C CC a H in a < c.) L d a) Q 5 8 a, c cn N c 0 E O O To m m m m m m E CU j C ac c i ai ac c c c i ai Cl) a) ai o c c ai 0) CU bt A C O o 0 0 o 0 0 O O o N ,-- wU a a i a i NV N V O OO O O N- ^r O N- O V CO dl d r d V V O V •r- r V N • C 7 rl 4. c -zrr r r N r M r � r CO V LL 4 M O . O V V V (°O V � V Cr) V O N O. V Z c' 0) c' c' 0) 0) 0) O) O) c' CD CU t3 .,.S'SH • 0 c pue dYYW X O a a) ..ISd Y o ,^ 'v`SI X X X X X X X X X X X X el "-' w 8 o c c a) ro Cl) C Cl) CO -cao y c _o ° ' a°i c• o °a D �o �o • 0 Z c oco � >, � ° o o c o Z C ._ co c 32 N 0. c 0 ` r O C (d -o co U U U "a cc fo c o O C C --� C C C 0.) a O (oo C N E 0 ON m o tn ° oa'a o c rn ai E o o a a) in c (2 co o :? E E ° c 0 0 0 o Z 0 - o 0 o c' in a •0 j a to •L a) ai 5 0 C) CO w Q .) "O L7 N C) C c •- •- .C a0i 0 r..-..-co - o t ° a) o c c c o) c fit CNa2Z C � TO Z rn t CO o 2 0 "Cl • c 3 0 _o N O to --- u) .= (.) Y C E C C O 0) O coc Co E 3cn ji "0 to 4l = C C OC O p O Y a N E j, E j, c -° C 0 • N -O O y •` O C t o o) a) co co a) C iTo n a) — m N C -0p ro • U) 0 3 0 3 O. t 0) g ° N 3 la CD Crl a) Lf) N vi a y O a O '3 fo Nap • �' C N Y 7 C C C ea y N c NI -C N -0 ti tQ O C O O (6 N (o O A co C 3 _ • _O ... •.c •'o t 'C _ 'CE O O ri co U U C co O 3 CO 0 O J' C C fop C Imo Ctl O co N �` " O 0) C co O . O 3 3 L _o r+ o -C to O U c) C a) co C -O C O "' o C = .CD a) "p i- w O 20 - U Y fro Y c`0 '= 0 a) E C co a s W f0 C C 3 0 N 0 0 o L -, N O j o , O) O c a N a O O C C co �. N •C toy C • — 0o. C ` .. .r G N (o a O C ` cD - •y a) O p w N n C ° C O O .C o C pEp O a ra , c .,_O) i '5 -N E .= fo L .O _o of) C C � E . a) 'p a) u) 0)C a a) a CD C -0 c O. a) O C a C a) a ,� C O y a O O C;., _i 3 N 7 c0 -5 fo V) > O J .C 7 '• VU N ul ) fo f• `9 • C/) .a - ° C C .- a a) 0 a) V) a) N 0 i a) w a) mac .O., O) o `u oc`oE ° o oc0'o E a� o .` 0 � O rn - O . H oN '- CO) oc▪) 3 E .- 3 •- 0 .` ° cm c •cE as - w oc0 0Q o ° o0 0 C) v) 2 00 0 0j 0 Osaco < Iv) < aa U) liE a aa < aOio LL < t ra E To VI Ec N .. c v 1. 'a o c c CC c CC c c c c bA CO aa)) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc wc) CL a O aa0a° 0_ CL a ao as u fa N-- 0 C 0 0 co 0 0 CO N- - N- CO O N 0 0 0 0 cn 01 — y Cr) cc ` 0 OO N N N N N O_ O_ 0 0 0 _ • 0 N 0 a1 - O M cCr) M CMr) 0) O) 0 m O *- Xi N 0 CO O 0 0 O 0 0 N N M 1-� V C v l(7 in In 141 M 1D N. fO III LL Q M 1Cp 0 7 cn r 0 r r r r r Co co CO O co d -p Z o N M M CO M M . N- aJ r r r r r r r r A E-4 40r ; ..,S'8H = pue dm' X Iii0 r. to a) .r,ISd F. o .-. .NS' X X X X X X X X X X X X "O u tT1 n W o O O 6O CJ = U Cn ...iC0 E y 4) +_ C • 2 c) O O c j N_ _U p 3 y a V O 2 G+ .Cf a 6 a N N c O C O d = .O O �O V O, co N c 0 O .o 0 0) N m Q w 0V O J i C '5 • = -- to n ro . O o C -0 D) C (0 co CO (0 O o '+O+ C C co = N Op " t4 Q ,- C O. - p C O O O C i p y CO O. O () V) Z a 0 .� d p M O 0 O 0 O o) 2 a s c v) co a 3 Q > v ° 0 CO c w c _o c � 'c to o •° U tri O z .O C N -O 6 N co 2 cop s o co C O C .O co.. O E C C O CO -O ' �= ("j N 0 W (n t N O N , .c C C C` u_ ro 0 ` CO O a. o 'O E '� E p 0 0 '2 O cco COO rn N c N 0 [0 u) co c0 C - 0') N C O C O p) O .- N O E o m -- 3 O o c = 0OD i' 3 rn r o to Y o c N C rn �a D j u, 0 _ O -O C v 0 C O r O = 0 w. -p C R `d Vv o- c 3 c -a D E w 5 . c = .c O) Co � c`0 � t p CO a3" m o � . coca cCD 0 g C 0) 113 'rill' (? ' C Co . .c -p O o r. 3 O 4; 'a yti co 43 O -� vi Ec co co E U 3 E o Cori o N O I- WC O C 0 t 0 0 (0 O O < O '++6 co C • C = O c N c o s N E V c c = p > - '0 O � = C N li COO w e N a0 04 C•o LC) ._' CO N N Cr). C_ _1[.. t ° Z.'a = L 4 00 - .c CC0 � .c J C •-Z _ C L '' coN f0 =r T C N w —...—c ' p $2 O O () - > 0 C O •� • (� a y 0 c N O .C w O O a •3 OM co p Z-4 « N y C Y � c OO •C s- ti) C0 E N- C ` O tan w U Ts O •cc (n .. �+ O >. • O O- C O O E c .• a O C a) .. a O ca ui C -v J N C O .. i a, a� _ O a� a� as at c0 � O 3 c 4r .� C [3 w (? O p V •U t9)1:5 8 �' y CU 7 N •p U a 0 co 01 O O ro Et D 7 .N y O N n O V r O N N O 3 o � Uaa .- � p � aacn v [CT, 2s Q -O E � L- Ts E = Co c0 «+ CO CO O O f0 (0 CO C CO (0 CO O �_ C C C C C C C O C C C C •5 = - (3)) N N . CD o-. 0 w w o61) . O C O O O 0 O O O O 0) O O O O to WU a a 0_ Q. O. a O. IX a a a s u e- �'r r N1 N e- r- N- CD r O (O e- C O O O O O O O O O O M u) N- O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 8 O p0 .-- V1 O4 0 O O NN O O (*D) O O 0 W y e L) M M ' - el M V c") cr N O 0 M N N M M N N el N .- (O CO RI • w O yy;, 11 O O O O OO O O O O M N M • c ,� v c E to u� cn v) to (n u� u� u� u� O) (N.O (O iC < (0O. Co E c) e- e- r e- C) �- r (� M M co M M M M M M M N. M - - H it Fr ...S 8H • 76 c pue dingo rn ..ISd N > = x nd o _ ;(5. .f/SI X X X X X >. a) w .- r..1 cu• 1. w a co a aa)) rrr��+++ W a co to' o n Yn > (, �4 c I C y CA O C hay • 0 _ co d ry U O `m to t C K d E co C co co ..- a) a m To z c w aN v � m 3 � cZ a — o ., s0 \.I O -O co a U O a C c LL O c a) >,._ o lir 2 m Er• m n m c 20 g m m - ci m °� m e m E a `��'x o c dCt d CJ 0 0 a) 0 C 2 O c•E m - m 0 0 0 C 00 Z N t` in m ie — U >,m co m g am 2o m cm a) 3aZ' ° nmo O co ' >...-o c m a E O m co 1:15 a) o G co L J m E ` Cu N W N Mot — a w '0 °' �° E (° z cm o c O 0 E .0. E 0 'O O Y 0 U? O •- a E a• o) N an co E o � � o 76 � acro be u, m C DI LO C S o u a ui U 0 0 C C N 7 C « fn U LLa' J W > in C d � -O o N 3 pc -O8 co �(y N )(1 n O Cu W C c • 'C O)L U W C o@. CO a) O :. rL ICI N (d O` C r a1 D E c (1 ≥ ≥ - a ' o > E cO C a) a 1Nq ^ dd p y ca S.) N -g . O U O N aJ L = = O V c N N U 2 .2 a) • �' ? C 'L 4'S C Q O > C) N O O) = o > a Ein l• W C V1 C U -0 U U _i Cu 'U L m V) o ≤ 2 a) o a) 3 mco 3 U ? O u c M N U 0 O.CO C N U N n.,— CI : ti a) o Cr 2C 222 a°� (°n — a •Cn d o C ti• O D "O O_ C N O a Z' Z` •C O) N U N . N w CO N a) > C > 0 N C E0 _70-4) - 0. 00 -6' .._U O — co — OO F 00 3c y «. m 0 F2 U a d C - ''5 � a a in O CC OS (`y -{2 co CC a)s s 'o E (+i )o 0 m m C a can- H c V) a) d . = ca E al 2 IE o c m y ° o o o c ._ o m c, m m < o c ED u)u) c O ;� 'C C C .C .C (n m Ni Op a a o be cco •C O O O O O ` co r a) 7 p O w .Y WU a a a a a° E > M ; � mm cpz V w C C 0 s a) > O r U N N _ _ a) ,.O_. 0 a) co c d N O O O O O O O O 0 Q U a• J O Q K 0 A rr r 0 0 O N .O. c CO a) c0 (n W W Cl.) a •41- 4e) V M M 'Cr 7 (n o O 0 7 ) w a) CO N N co M E (n O N R w n d , a o 0 0 0 oo 52_ n C 7 H C E r r N N LO LO E N yNNFF- • Ltd M a .a2CO cn � 0 0 oU (n O ty . . Z -oaCJ7CU .CJ b f—t Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.17.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.17-4 summarizes information on properties with potential or recognized environmental conditions with regard to hazardous materials that are associated with Package B proposed highway or transit improvements. A total of 40 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package B highway components. A detailed discussion of these sites is included in the MESA (FHU, 2008d). • • Hazardous Materials 3.17-21 ...SBH • Iii c o_ pue dWW 6 co cm 4JSd X .. o a/SI X X X XXX X X X N 1� �+ W o - N o m x a) -° r m ° o 0 (n ≤ .. ._. N (o co r E C Cu N C O 4C-5.) N Da") C C N -0 O O o o E 0 O � O a t o • D -o CO -° a Z `c_ y r d U C Q OCD r @ co /-~ 'b 0 N L.. 0 C ii ,..9 O C CO C -0 3 -O CS w'u� ° U 'm .c y c o co .p. a C -o o N E U N 'N C O N N: V .o. .c F- H cis co > p ° C 00 17" L 00 c c .O — ` C co D D ao N (p Cu C 3 is EA J J )n L N corn C O _ C Ct O E — H ° N of D 1 Y co to C N o H Q :o LO c Cu Y C C --- D fn 0I iii N W >c. U C 'O N O C co hil•> o) coj -° ~ o me 3 'm E � ° `ox m 2 O)10 O C N 0 C 2 N C O W YO o O C _a to E Q)pm o 7 Co Vl 'C N O O c '5 p a L N co O NO r0 -00 ,.o-. E (o N ¢ i0 o cm y ?� p 0 C N@ C co J To- .Qw o moo„ N J p ._ O ._ H m o o ka) -r,.)- c7—c C .) Y C J E W C N Cu o)CO 0 D H °-poop— �' E o c bn J C .... U N O V a d O co p c t o 0 o J o o E U z CO of L CO y L a m 'O _O co o O O) N -o o C Z n 0 a .) .a U o) co o) O a a'O OU a JLL .co ri) _Z 0�1 a O C -F13 0 2 N • to n Es U w W Earl.) c p = O c - (o cW (o �C 0 , J 71 N C a V co a O 0 0 y N N O) E c 0 � N to C E 0 V a U co 0 14 9 " � p OcmC � QC � mao ° ° > m0 coo a) v°�im = c w -o Cu n a y n N a Et 0 r oDNNoL1tZ ku HO no N 'CL a= CN a = O) co ? CO C °� m m C a ? a o aCC ai c a E o) E `m L 0 N C E D D) C ° _a ,o ° to 0 o Z l o yo J C c N m m 'O ...w. c a. cc m o � o mo -p a� .2 ,L. :° m :9 C7 COY ` -°0` C c .op m w il G • L C TS C 0 O C y ` c C 0 0 0 W ? 'OOO N L -0 N N q o .: c a ` o .N o N o ≤ a E O C C 0 ≤ L m N V p To v oo oaoF ocN CN claw u°) XCCE rn '0 c o2 <o 0 cAw0 Q �aooF oo) 0 -1U' Ce � y � oyinaQE 5 0 To C c d ) E c a0C O C N N N N N R C O u W V a o 0 0 0 0 o o o ce CCrrCC a° a° a° C r Po r c 0 (f O) N C 0 0 If) C-1 N N O 0 W 711 CO O O co 0 0 0 O O O Cr) l00 0 A OI d �- 0 _N 0 _O O O 0 N_ O a Q N V C E O 0 CO N N 0 C0O 0 co 0 • y d Z COn L° CO CV CO I . tO N- CO CO co CO CO CO CO a ft H • ...S'8H yii1Sd X rigPLiedINIiI O Tf .VSO X XX X X X X X X X In 1 e rr W S C C m m v N _ ® ai C 'co° 0 0 OO m N O N y N E C C m .C 'O L -O m o _o O D N a) o t0 com ZO Z E 4... N coL (0 - N C) C 0 C� a L m •4 c m m a m 3 0 m c 0 o) o 0 0 0 ' Ew C.) O c O C 0 N c C C 7 a C y m co co C C N L a) cc)co Oo E N C E a r D m ai S m o m E a) v c c D co m m o o CD m -O C E c c o ai m p o O NS rnS o a o 0 C V _ N I- -≤ O C C CO u a.ti p- a) =p . C co .O co co c D N 0) N V C m a) N m N O C CD C 'O W �? L v of c m c m m o � o m 'C Ea a; m = m 3 ; E w m `o �.'o aJ .0. TN E m E O N O� 0)C N N a N C _a y .�-V c co ui S O= O 0 O -c 'O a 0- 300duac � c E omm9 o o 0 f) -8- a) E . o p N Y a) f) m 0-0 O V NO0 m Q m N V To D C m 2 L '5 m a l`0 a) co a) o o a m a) N � 7 ' 0- o Qn a V L O ≥ OBE • C1 > m ' ...:ca m m � ° m •aim mce c y .15111 � o m .h C tic m 0- °a -ov coa cmin � c0 v mc 'oo °� � � bN a m O N O - c loc O ri o c CCD C N a O 'O U E D m L = '12" v EL macnyacaa) C . T N ~ UN• a q C o � � Em � o � m Nm m = c '' caa)) 3 r O N m m V C N Z C C m a � N H F- C C C C N J .0 C N O m a C "O C L C a) N C �r a To 0) L • CO co L CO U > O m N C Z' O N N = U V ≥ > 0 m a C a) 2 0 0 v0i C N a) a a c m m O ' O n CO cn q t• w U a) C aEZ a .- JC W " -O (� yOaC QCQ 7.5 TOU Ocn W N o -J YO C co 0 0 0 O a y m C C O CO w O. p cc N N N L >. N L N N O. E N O co .r,:,"7",-.6 g C] J ' ai om € aim CD m `oomamjccmcv � n30 , E O mLa2Eaw2EQEam a0 Clamo E IS Cn c d -a E c a) N CO o m m m CO m m CO m m c b CO a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) o o v4 w u 0-o 0-o 0-o 0-o 0-o 0-o 0-o 0- 0. CC O o ea •— 0.1 C N (n N O 0 r CO O O W W D I. O d N-CO 0 O O 0 0 y. C)) i0 N CO R p) r= O O 0 0 N 0 CO M O_ C J al �. a N COO 0 O CO N CO 0 • a s c-I O C D 0 N-- O CO CO N CO N CD CD C) N J a) a2z a CD CO CO CO CO CO CD r CO A O F- od C xxxS�H X • Ri o pue drily,' x o m 0. _ xxlSd x X o ENSI x X (/ m N - a -- 3 ° o a) U ≤ c c .- 0 0) m N O To- o caE 0 ° oho n oE .-co Joao y o _N O N C U N 0 0 C o 0 m a) „ 0 U :� O O m 0. C m .2 Q N ...•C a .C C mm mEE - mfri maw COQ ? O N C O 3 Li) ' °O) O) 0 m N Z' N To O.L ,r T Z` N m N E rl1 m A O C C o 0 °) C 0- X m as o N T N O N y co O C 'O N N C O C N M O C m Q FE co S co co O. y .m ' O d O .c C us c s-iO co co N 0 0 a N O N y Y O C _ C N .., F .-.� y y .. t �+ m E c o m �N o 7 (n o W . .c -0 Y 'y O �m E C O m .3 N y N C = = C O c o) co O. O c cm.— T. > o t a m C E � , " o C C r m _ C o O d $ o m C M c CV E c o 5....a) c a� � C C N O O — O 0 L„ CD a a vS N Oa o r as C Cli co ED_= co U o, E N -O r N m t u c0 LL 'O c E U `j c fo N p m 0 E " r m II fN, m . m 0 0 O m 0 •V) N .. > ... O c c fn fn N > O "w -°, a) co' -0 F- 2c 3 jo o a� m � ° acWra° E r3 "r p � o) coi c � E �° 0 N CL 3 c co :E a) , = r • J p 0 0 .0„ a C = E C -0 m Vmi > m N c") ra o co N O (1) N C 3 0 N O= CC N L_ Q O L C C N Z O N Q J OU C -O O > a c 0 0 C N Ur CU U > U 0 J m 0 L C C f0 C y p TO C 0 oF' oai O � 3 °' E ° voices ≥ gym CO m OQO .w o � v;� m oc 5O e i a. > co o "o c u0i 'C o U -. C c o e d .. 0 E _, ,- 00 0 m U -o m 'm au oO E 3 0 0 LL y O `y U C U MC C C L0 th O m 0 d N C CU J m co O N 0 3 N C ct O. w 3 0 c .. O N -0 O C.0 •. morn � .om � �aa � � ? � N .ocE � � � C •. - -yo °) o o - c E000a; 2 co _rn L.= N O d.. 'O -(15 ,5_ °15, c>3 .5 to y w " sE,a) 0 Vi O N O .0.. m 0 5_ O T > O o C co 2 6o a d a m > ta G O m N o) M m d J 0) a m a) w e o 'a 3 0 m `' E 0 v a) O N PO W : _ 0) m 'O 0 0 ... W U C.)CC co C. 0 c 0 c N in A 0 No W 0 f- _ n 0ht. d N Co0 fy LL ` C E in o a fn CO 0 J LO M • 0) LL3z co co .0 RS • o ++xS'81'I o Pue any X X X o CO ..ISd X X C y .VSI X X X If) W e 0 o 0 -C `o a) a o r�+ U N > N N i 0 0 0 _ a o c rt,,, C COO co m .L.. .. Y 0 N 0 0 to O ' L' 0 m m co 0 O C E s~ v E � a� '� ≥ - Eit co S a o c a) m ;0 Q c -oo` ami P? m 3 c � �° w (2 .c u)-o 0 4 mU w m 0 0 > m 0 0 - 0 . 0 CO j � ac �) cc Lm 0 cz o � Xmm � NN id N O ' E C N Of . U o c o m .c O N N 0 a .O O N N > Y=. @ .E N -Np m .- oOV .a o iO cm y ocO do0) 0 :° E cNF Z 0 m O O N m •N ❑ N D N m 0 ° ta3 ? @ N C CO O D 0 la-) 0 "0 > O 0 o a 0 C � (0 3 0 .00. "O o .o 5 m S . o) 0 E ≥ c o c o E a a) u) y o 3 0 co _0 0 0 0 -5 -00 N J C V d N -O - =,_, Dui 0 o .O N > '0 c - N in a) "00 Q 'O co 0 J .0. 2 O E O Z .,-I o -o E 3 0 N C r L o .o CO N maw 0 y c N � 2o � � ocE � � o m oEa - 0 (5 0 W O co "O C cow 0 ' ._ O` a0. ti. N N c0 o C O C m 'O ,.0. 'a N 0 m 0 .L. p 0 -0 O ) = O ._ m E o E CO to t cN J O a) c E m c) C Z N O > N C O N m L t O •C D O N - O)c .a) 0 Q C a) C .0 0 0 c sz O o O o -C "O U O a 0 OU 0 C C 3 N E a) N 0 o c C 0 O m Q N V :' c T r J ._ i a) L O) 0 ,_ .0 'O m N N C N N • P;C EE � � � � oo � w Ems' ° -.S CT)000153 � m � 2r � � mY � 3o) d3aoi 0c 30uiacitonE ocmio � � q E o o rn ' 30 c m 3 0 o C ° m o N � z aa .y R O aN N0 C ^ Ow N Y .N 00 m0 V O "0 m o mc co , c = c a co y r O ° E C .S 0 m > m A o co N ._ c '- 0- >, N 2 b m o .O+ C H O N = O D co •0 O -0 -0 O ` O_ a) m U in .0. cn E N N J 0 X N J U C m N c a C E N N ' O O a 0 c _ c O o0 0 m m O o 'JO N 0)!_ N O 0 in < 0 i Oc X -O 0 o wLp = 0 � .0 0 2' 0 O UL L 0 00 ... um 'Ea) m mai.o woo �-o °' a moUON6 ->- ~ Lo. N c C 0 ,_ y SE N C 0 H O N ._.. 0 c 0 C N t') f- n 0 O cu co C �' p E > N N c 2 • ..n co N ¢ N U U Q CO C m O N N T a) c_ '— E (/J 'O am a� i m .• N c c C O N V - O. E ore- N m o U N C CO 'y y N a) c m y 0N . � — E 3 m o O N N t a 3 .. a) O_X O a m z 5 < L m a OI c U O N z. Sa.. CO 0 NHNOO > c . aw � � � a� Z ≥ > n 0.'oocdE � E cE a o 0D -O N -N co a0 aO )t') m 0 C c N W m CC N coe N .2 'O Cr N U E RE CIS 0 -o 'O 'O E 0 N N 0 P: G 4." C C C O O)o 0)0 O) 0 ,Y W U W K 0 '2 U e C o c co N 0 O o co W " CO 7 II0 0 0 00 0 A0 el u c E co (0 0 0 0 C • IL < KJ 0 7 O 0 0 9 2 CO a`°O CO d a et [. ...SOH . ro c pue dWW x x w 0 ro =.iSd x r. a -, .vsi x X x xx x x x X x x x x N4 v - w o o >, _ 8 V C C) C 0 0) I a c° co (n co co C C° cca o a) a) o 0 O a O c° D O E 0 C a ° c 7 o C C C c 0 ICO v . J O x G •°O U ° O O w .O = C C° O U C V N a w a) a) C c cN co C co t� V) V) • w rc N C ,C y N (a L O 0 < C 7 C cp a+ L y C N N C co . O U CO it p L J cts _ 3 E as as ch _ o •� E m= comma 0 0 o a) 0) L c(a e- o A Y o o o 0) al 7 m t co ai s c!1 a? 0 C C c , 7 0 0) c 0D V) .� o ai : o o a o >`o - ao • o o �j E 3 •cp > 'c CO u) c° V a) o C C 0 ° — ("q c Do c° o = a) w _ c rna — ° a) oz 0 Y 2 w W m o0 OW �a � 1- • C O m c c D C CO o d 0 o O p 0 _c o farin ,•,. 0 o 2 o a C ° ° o a .N c � o D 1- (i 0 0 o co -c D o E H o C a (CO V tapo cacc o ca ,- Wu) CCD — cu E co p a) o == oz E o a) c o 0 0 c ca w u 0 yv a o 0 0 � o w a? o (.9 'a a g cu > 0 " c 0 (a t C O 0 O co co N t0 V a) C w o c (o c4 o ti)c CE (o w • "0 c 36oc a 2 = m D00 0CL — 0 aa) aa)) v) � ti wccoo �- ≤o ° N ° c c ocoti 0c° 3 2 E O ' C O � N '= 0) a) " "' on Tui ! a 2 0 a C '0. .0 Ta Oc c 0 O` C .CO. c6 O C C '0 o c° E o (° o c Y o a) o a c° as C Lao _ - oo a) 0 c c 0 c taa)) D a a) ° aa)) L s ,4; a)8 c y a a) CO C 0 C O 0 u) r (° _.-• w ` " V a ai Rr O-0 0 13 Xo «. cot 3 cpa)• � a) a) . j o c acia � a) Co ▪ c T ° a) ?.— w D a) -J N c) a) 0 7 1 o ow co cn o a) m O 3 -0*— •O ,O a) 2. c'- .3 ▪ 0 " 0o � o w ≥ � > 4) 7 a)0) •cI- .( 0 a aco Ch 6 ° l ._ Z Q c Q c � •-° � UQ aa)) Q) Q. aa)) 0 v w N E (°° O co) c N I.._ c - c H o M co 0 0 O c '? o f o m a .. a) -0 03 0) c° o 0 o cyv c o (a CI)g f"0 N U 0 -) '13 r0 o ci) 0 tea) y Q 7 N 6 E -}°— E = cn fn r--. co O o O (N° (a C C c t (y° Q N N o 0 0 a) 2 Coy j cO° j 2 co co Z C N E ro G � � XL (7 ._ U c° H C� .- U1- U `UOLL CL ,- Q aQ _c C7 OE C.) 2 E u 0 Cl) 0 •v c 0 a) N N C N To C t° (° N C f0 f° (° E f° (° a� ,_ -0 C C O C C C 0) 0 E . (4 C O o o VO a) a) co 8 0 a) a) ° a) a) V W () d d a) o d d QO' C 0 d X 0. O. P'' N u) '1 LO r) C N N 0 C) In 1- V' ,- CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 3- 0 0 O 0 _O C ' n d 0 Q 0 0 o O O NE- N. r0) O 0 p� C C E LO N (I) N CD 0 C))O1 M 0r) C) LL Q o a 12 Z coo co co co co 000 0) 0) - CO CO r • F" • a ...S)8H o Pue dWW X X Ira - o CO ..ISd X X i . y .VSI X X X X X X X X X X x X x V 1 V l •=- v i .y n y W o 0 m C _ 0 m 0 co .V.. C CU 113: 0 CO Vi N N 0 _N E 0 • .U-. U o 13 U E -o - -0 O 0 N E C CO CO U J O O y m p 0C O C Z N p_ O y L O 2 p 5 C 8 c = c = E p 0 C o O a n'O ' O O O O O coO F O a y N C a 0 '5 g m m `ow m C) E o) E 'O U .p M ,coO U .`0-. y co E To O C 0 .c N C O -0 O N O N -141 -� 3 C N N 0-17) c0 y c t„too N O O O O -p O N L N m w 0) 'O 3 .a) m O O �' C 0) co C E m co To C L O m O)~ co N m -.- O J 2 023 tio 5 Oa� = mY E6D S s a E > O.Y N Q,-o E L °i� JOO O N O 0 O 0 `o w C 'O c _ r -0c -0C O — = m c y 1:1 ° ,3) C y C y UJ V m m •� 0 (.0 ta ten C5 p C E N 3 0 0) m •a• 00 • C -0 0. 0 C O a Cl N 0 r c. L -0 00 ` C .N C .N 5 p2 N N J O V) 0) U) N 'O o o -a m ai -0 CL m cc 3 a) ' al -c DIE N N N C N L C N o 0 C C O N O N 0l0 C c E o) E a) o) a) o m m r, c c vi o o -o Or C C N 0• c Y E o = = C 0I E O `) O N to U d D 'o N c 'o _o C = .o m SiO D = D N C CU O W m e.9 m e.9 j, o m E 6 m m N = O '-co 0) yi C 0 C J 0 O) U 01 U .C) • .. m m L ,� U N L N U E C U a CO Oa B0 a) 0 a) N 3 O o N O > O >CD a sj— ea O U m O N • CO N N N L Oct m C H a a) N L NI r O )+i R '25) oo" r. a08E -No 3 � 5 °- E ! y •��, � N OCivmiEa+ � c o N mmE 0 3 ON ON e C H L N O 0; ? N 00 N -..- ° L E -o N ≥ Q. C > > = ,0) 0 a`) ayo• a) ° a) c c � yE .) 1 a' ao pa) o a a O 0 .p N CD w N N y = o .`• V .j a o m j J — To. Fr C ME E U c m E r > N = Y J c O aa)) co V �+ C C c C y▪ . J ® m .-. DCCC .3 C r• m 2 o _ ® E 02E 3 a) oa 0) 8 -08o4Smw = '- om � cIw (I' ric `� fic d 2 c co N .C—O co co C m Q. 01 0 0)= 0 a° D O) o t7 00 0 0 0 C Y a) L a' 212L = yoo NMmaouf)) go To c i- � a (I) I- w C CO > 3 To co6m3cxw0No0aia) 00mmaa)) D ? 3 » 3 O U 0) O O Y O)YO O T - U '.U—. D E O) m -orO J '.U—. a) a) c a) a1c 4" N Y co Y ` N Y C (6 L p yp E N a) 0 0 C U > > J ≥ ≥ J e0 0 m 2 = I-VII-D--)C0m > aQUmXmocO2a< QO)QQm E E R Le) C) V V E C N 0 F• C m m m m m m m m m m m 'C C 6) � )p C CCCCCCCCC C O C bo j C 0 0 N a) 00 a) 00 0 0 0 00 Cu C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 a) `1i w t) d 0_ d d a s d a d 0. 0. It 2 U et r- C o O co u) a) or-- CO v CO CO O O m 2 � 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 r N CO CO (A N IC (n N O 0 0 0 0 O) CO 0 0 0 W y i0 . 0 O O O O O 00 0 O O O �ry 7 7 w O 0 N O 0 Or N NI- 'Cr 0 0 0 0 c = ri � cE Oz. c mNr C M CO CO M CO CO I N C) CO • LL < > O) CO 0 O M 0. 13 U > O � r CO CO rr r co r r r CO r aJ a▪t o c x..S'8H • 1,5 0 pue dm Irr ...ISd F >. 0 N m g - z a.CDm C ...c$ � *VSI X X X X X X X >. ) E 1 i 1 ^ �p O N co O ate+ y >, Co d V) 0 C C OZ C O m � aaicoi o to N V, wCZ cp E " C cn c c O c • 3 Y .1-73 O o � 3oa cam _� _ � + a w z c ~ Y = Ccaj -O Co ai voff_ c cZ C D cm � `O c cow aa) M ca E- v, &) O v, c ,.. w co t a) - � m t, as c (2,- U o ° coccEl 00) ° 3v, � oa,Q3 Tti > o ° � .E -6; )2 2 � N�caroLi � ayiN y .r f6 N d w .-. X O C CC a) Z > c c C) 0 c cam, v, ow000 - >,U c cca i000 . CO c cv'a ii E c) >,a, c�a . ui d (Doc p o a) o m coo as Uciced•gw > a V C O O -0 a O ° cv oa v, T.-._ • W � t � °Jaic N ° w �' 'C mm a ° c � a) s RI 0 c 3 C a L r N _1 .- N v) v, U N 0 E y0 Li- ?Q Q fn d C f O O j O o °c o CD t o? U dCCU p 3 ED c o ° c ,_ 0 :h. . cnO1lCC .1w > En co 13 a.) u a .0 y c CO 3 c oo t`pON j C) ea Ctri O 3 Y N _Z CO c O c L �' N Zi _C C L C O O C o rm m a [0 '≥ 7 I.:. •ea • 7= -x Co 3 ". Na C CO J O UO C -4,. '� M 1 E c ° � � v 2 c o is a) co L c) ° a) Y z o p c .c .. 0 't ~ c 0 ,- co C 0 a `N = a) 2 ,_ cC oOD 0 _ m cn .v x �: E °) a) � ° ° � O ac a as c Q o acs° aci c ca ° H .°3 m � E I i m c a� v ≥ s a��i O1� o'oaa� o ° aa) x c Cl O c) r a) a) m .ino �3 is c 7o al o Ti a) ` r ?' a m 3 •c .O O O N a) CD .O -V 0 m M CO U v) QO O O › D z 'N C O Q E f oO O O N C C o 0 N 'c `5 � Q (tj ai t o c o a 000 O 0 c co o) IO 3 «0 ° U ° R 2 O 00 a) o � �, ov, cn cn E • E � v) � a)� m •. a c� 12 03 O >0.' t � Sv°) � uaiu- C7 Ca Qn. Qccri0X 03 ev c `�°'c „ C E ai caocococo E co C Cn o d C N M is c rnrn'co as , E c a) _ c c a 2 O 0 a) al c O (0 (0 N Q C ,co V) (0 'C N TO (U .- c N C etp ,C O Q) aJ i O C C C � o Uc > > U ea O O O a) O O O � aE. yi = EEE) utV Q. d a CC CL d Ua aai E ") 0C' a, > 0 ea CE ow c hm� ovO, ,-- Ow a) N N 1- In ^ C 0 O a) 0 c .0 a) _ CCJDQa' coN O O O O C O O O 0 Q y W H c0 O S N- O O N- 0 w CD c w vi C7 CO � 3 wd o � � `t 0 m �'E � o� U Q) . N O V, NI- or) a m-- cn c cei ` c E co co co a) a) el rn E �' vs"--a,l a d 'UZ M - - - - N. OZ O av',C>>tncn0 lill e0 H Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.17.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Table 3.17-5 summarizes information on properties with potential or recognized environmental conditions with regard to hazardous materials that are associated with the Preferred Alternative proposed highway or transit improvements. This information is organized by build component. A total of 67 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 20 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with the Preferred Alternative. Several of the sites identified in Table 3.17-1 are impacted by the project. A detailed discussion of environmental conditions of these sites is included in the MESA (FHU, 2008d) and MESA Addendum (FHU, 2011c). • • Hazardous Materials 3.1729 d .,~ S'8H X • t c PU MINX li c b c c co «.ISd X X in tr) To6 .h�Sl x x x x i W o - - O a U a tv to o N a) a) d Z ro ,N �c C c ca -0 or`tia = Q N O Li Oo coca (0 } 0 0 •a NFU U to o � •� y NZIL NZLL to o ' _ ' 0 M U J ow J W a) E 3 N o a OA a) m a z -13 0 o U0 E � o Ti Co 0 u a > °U I- C.) 0u) G a '0 a) ro 2'p a) ai c w• cri es-- C0C t(0 a M -ID c y > co E C O — a o CD 0)) C ro O - 3 ro to ro Cron ai E a) x c ro � co v-Dc ti)) E o c o aa)) 45 to elit 0 oa) ww � c -. c .. owQ art) OEwC° 1 $ C) C C y " ° U O c U ate% a•CU `) t CO ro o vrn in n) Oa) aro 2 . cn roa) Dc .. N � M • N fp C 6 V Oa N a � C j a) ro m c co 7 j.- .,rte. r0 0.:°� cc `nw- = 0iNt- cE c � 3 • t� -0 4-. a CO j Q a) ea U C ro o ac) ro j �) o '_O" ` C E rn in CD CD co . .?� ro ro to O .o a to d O to , Q) its �+ aOy warn -,f) C � x c) 3rovO, � Nc o >,(jai O U aj H vi a) u) O U O c p c C� w a c0 i .+ uJ c a (O 2 0 a) co C N E Z t N c J O o ai nroi Nom :° Hv E co a) Y �' ` uroi co. Ca) at to aro �a J � a�roiU � .� aaai oar' 0 3 a o m - E oQ ra f° .c o c � a) (o �, � c c CO a`) a`, d (: r C a T J .... a. C w N .C ti .. .- co Y 0. f0 a U r o c to ci N ro O OH CU y J -p .N X V) C V) Ow • O E 0 C a 0 ≥ 7 = OW O y V ? C O N 0 . a_ C C H U v � ro .- 0 o o L o y aid 3O 0 � in • mcc u) roc Oo � 3a) m > to)(0 ycca � cn � ze" I aN, aim Q C >, � o � l� Q mt c 3 C >. C a1 coc~i, � a CO d 0 'm t0-0 0 CD W - N (6 N ri )I a O)COi C M _o C v �... DE O r O +' �' O (O Z O Q N O ro 0 N 7 a O D O ro corn O p a N CU)) u) (1) -c to as a u_ ,- . '6 2 '6 U)) C .C C7U U 2 Ez 2co Qro a c _ a) a)_N a) O 4 ro c Tv N +� c ro a c c a) d = w U o a I-v a.. CC to CC CD - a1 C 0 o N. N 05 0:+ 0 O 0 N 1- O W ft/) CJ O co O IS 3 uI a) =�.. .0 o - O 0 N. u C E 1- O LL Q0 ro = Cr) 0 0 Cl.) a Z O O CO to 0 • CD 711 ea I~ • 'ti ' ...STH .71 C c c pUe driw ch s a E In ..ISd 0 . N W 0 re .VSI X X X X X X X O _ • V R U) C c v c a � � 0 0 c to to to N O C a) c '�O o) O rno � = 0) co c cc = u) CDc Q 9 TA t"n o Lo. ;9 o O)o 0) 07) C, o C Wt. u0) of 0o -c I toot/ co 0aU 0oU '^' in cC LL. CO IL 0 W L en L LO LL LL � s LL. � 5 LL CO LL LL 7 C W Ti w V U a) tq N U a) O° a C O J coO i O 'Z Z t`, O E �, c`0 N o y O C U a c N E CC w o — Q a ° Y E � c .c c 4 c o - O = z > � oro c, (, roc, 0 t co0) 2 a N Um C00 2 10 1g 0 a (.9 05aa c co 'b O ( o a) c a O o 0 --i to c en co O (, u) C C R3 to a c0 c 0 (? N y O O CO u) a) aco C 7 cp O _O C 75 13 U � _c c, c cc, O �) D D7 m'2 c,2 a) • COr om ccc, c � > YCU TO a 00 a) 0 (z. N, a � c C ti) di a> o Xco °� ° � � co g- = n • _cN cc a ) a≥> a v ca v •^" ''' ''' (A C a) c a) N .3p coEui coEC n 'c OCOV a) O 0O To *xi m o a) .. ro a) a) E cvv acv x a) ... , v cr CL 4"' (, c -eh 'v c `Eloo alai of o4) co co Caro Gn0. o o Q10 cij W N N a •7 0+ O N •V — H -- I - -- a) r C • O CT c, <, O O O -° cn > E _° V) O U) O x O 'O ..rtn Q) tn a � H � cal � m D � a) ac c ° �, ro Nom. Q � r a) a) a) O) ?^ fi co a _ E p o � c :? aim E ai o o c c ai O. C d c 3 a n.0. o Q c• o Q c° t/1 C.)at ( dm ooaa)) aco- r° i, y .97 .D � c°� -°-5y I p _ tall) c0 .- C = a o To •N toO ) ) O 5 C w ., =' 0 y (C, > (N, c`0 _co v0) c O O Co N N 0 CON N o w N ea Cl) ce , r bra a D co ma E 0 .- 5 O - cc § E E ).., at/ c Q w o m m Tv co o �, �, b r 'a C C C C C c c al c a a) « a) w y m a) I-u 0 0 0 0 0 0 a cu C, c o C) — co CO o ;. O o 0 0 O O WN N cal) a. 0 0) o N- to CO•) o _ o O O O O �t O CO ca c°) r+ coO Lo Co O Co N Co C a (C cf) CoD O .- CO CD N (ND • it Q a 'a z CO co CO CO CO CO co a) .O a E4 • o Pu'emomry = EE a' #4ISd c y (o.) N w l .vSI X X x x x X 0 C U ' 0 O 65 _o 41 In g d O p Ct p z G 17 O O Z' a rn a y QC i c c '- C N C c Q) c top ca p ca p ca D w - °� w - o � o � c £ O 0 a) ti >+ > O .- > I) I- > N 7 U c'I E Cl) C •"" Lc) a J (OCOJ Lnm _I Trw LL• A- CI) LLLL o) L a) CI) L.. 7 C W U 'C 0 -O O O_ C .. c c c C •N co N O N U i Q c E c c U) C bb0 • y c o cc°i2� B m ccoo c c .3 a`) a COQ 0 0 0 2 c2 o o c •— O o- E 2 t � Q V) UUd c o U •S u) Li) < a co c W — '� u) ai Qci `o ai H a) wco '� m ca �' E O co m v. QO, u) ~ o v) -•y C = �0 N ca Q Cn 'O To O o. V) - V cr O c a L`p U N C O (Q co U _O m O C (Na U C C Cl 'C co as co 4J f0 �p ca = C L w Jr 0 w L Q '` CT ca c Q to N O ` co a M • O C E 03 y O O ' • p y N ti x is v N c o g ocn .E, c o U3 � Y a O N L Q O .," N a) p C tQA 7 M r Q) C u .0 M 3 CD (' '2ci m cou; a� a� o D1 Z 03 a) o ca O co Q) N U �+ C O_ ,- c) 0O0 N C = -73 w m c a we = a 3MC � c O 3 Cn -Co c O F o j •— o _Q o C C c 3 p m � Y N •c ca a� o CO > c i c a 3 Y QQ p Q E L ca C ca N D N V C C n .. OC a) ice-, i+ y V! CO O "O .O (a co E o) C. Q "O C C c 2 Q Qj - N CA Q •c 2 O '� U y O Of m coo .7 e � CU a c — o `° �,N CL m Q I d o D o c 3 �o N o c ca�a) CC 5 d E -o o o 'C7 4? > C C Q Q) C O ro V) L° (o� Q3 .C E. E _ E = ao -2- toE co - - oz, c 0 Q '47-, To To �a w «. To a) p,= ac) ac) ac) ac) ac) ac) I-� a 0. Q a a a w C) r L', o ‘-' co � rn v N- 0 n o p O O zs 0 N LTI .. V i CO CD O ON. co N 41 C = VI Cl O A- d 7 N N N CO CO CO r0 r0 CD LL < (.6 a.1-4 CO '! Z co co co co ccoo coo • C) ea F Srg O)c 0 E R ISd .r„ T+ V 2 N w '� CL *VSI X X X X X X 0 ° CA th CC cc cc Ct° - o C_ >+'C a) -amr O lc C a) C C 0 Z Q � �O 3 0 .n ) co 0 v 0E .- to m E 7 E 0r , C U N .c N , C L . C a � N C O a) a) d r r 1.4 U) 1- LLLL COO` m N > LLC0 T- NLLJ e- >. LL J C') IJ ..r U — v a) a) c co °c_ E N CO c 2) a E •z Z c OaI 'C0.a.‘ as o C U) LL b] _I > , iYa 0 C l— CL V CL g O CD c ea o G) 3 71 U Q c N O y •C y c`o3Q c Co - 7 ' CO y rn 0 c Cn .3 O t D ea -. o C. CC co dLY '5 u) D'E Na ca N 1+ aND C U C o r• n C N _ca a 2 co co M • -t Cd f`CS Q1 CCf C U C L J to A CO C C O • V Q C co• C) C C n a) a M ..w 00 Cp N E 0-2 t a as O - co 4 3o to Lt3 a) E -0 aa) L o U •c 3 u) C C C = *+ C O 7 aj O O L Cp CU C oa O D CC .o. Cr1 co - C,- O > Q) aI C u) E 6 CA N • .C ato O o — cp t4 -O 2 '5 N ,'c CV 5 c a o_ cc° ono coca 4g o .Uc� gay ) O 5 o � v °� 3 c vim :? c ai :. LU 00 - C Q Cv on p :� o 0 •a U) Irio � c2 ESE L � Cal L -0 N (� uVi aN a7 •ui •O CT a; = ui or ui to mw i d1 C .._ To O a) m L >, Cn O N N O a) -gyp fC c tV 2)— -o+ o U to N O N CN9 V C• C6 N U W y CCS O f6 N 2 CDC 0C CO C`U Cp O > u) CC CO O ea to J3E .caCEO 2Dsa2h a E CCU C GJ .4+ C Q C w (0 f0 To «S To C6 c c C C C C Q. C U (1) Cl) «4). Cl) Cl) T..) I-v ao ao a a a a° v CI- 14.I Cl.) C O CO N ,- M m O . 0 0 O 0 O 0 �. O CO 0 t 0 V) !V V I- O et ct 00 0 '1 ill ar CA to 41 'r,-,, .O 0 CoN N 0 �a ca N. 0 c E r� c� cz ri � d � N to co O • i. < m adz o 0 0 au 0 b H UD § @Bdw§ $ d \ * 0 o ■ § { ) , x x x x x t § \ ' - ; 7 , \ < o } ) k g / / r } k \ ! \ o \ \ § 0 \ \ ) \ ) ) /{ } \ \ \ // \ \ ) \ - \ | o = - \ ) ` _ ; E2 22Ko 0 L., e -0 4 EE ■ - o>< \ co 32 If / % / ) }) / \\ ) } \ \ cif § ) \ § \ 2 It � , - © ) k : , o � e - - - ) \ \ k ( 7 ) - _ - % — f } / / / ) `a ) ] CCCO a) _ lill $ Eat a _ = � D = = D0V j 0 co co cool) \ « U - _ \ o j7 ( ( ( (/ ® ® \ { / / ) ( o a2E ; = e Ct a {, / / { ) _ - ) {z\ t ) \6\ ) � k /\ ] ! a ` ! ; § co ._ e � - k / - ( ) ( a } 2 ) ) 222) } } , cc : _ 7 ) 7 � � | { ) ) ) kj) k ) / \ \ I co;23 \ { \ � � k2 tOOo $ ) / / / J ) / & z ! � .O co / § ) K/7\- cc < c u } _ ` C 0 < - — - - - - - � k - N f - .0 a) a a # »J 2 0 2 2 ) � - 0 LAO O 1- CCV O RI oit < COCD � Q CO 2 CO _ CO , el , _ } • o a) ...S'8H X X -43 C 0 13 Cc o Pue dWW b C Ern *and X e• o i Si N '� 0• .0 et .vSI K X X .. w o 0 o V 0 E i T a CC Q r.o 3 0 "O W 0 'O Z - QJ rC Q it � mm an o > oaCi o 00 O Co CO rmO to 0 CO LL —I H C a)1.14 E a a co n 'O m 3D m U N C Y 2 c — w o ' o N.. w C > C C C 0 N � U Uo Y -3U O LI 0 ~'� o O c act 'C c � u o0 .0 .c amid > 00 6- cc; el O N N -O N —(3 ✓ j -0 co) L Pa 0 O O C - a) aa)i 3 N w co C a cap, r t N c0 c = No pr.≥ a'O N a 0 co C O O L N To 0 O O `) N N 0)-0 O C m m m O m L • J a7 O Y O` E -S • c Q m w 5 0 ° N O c o C .94) E O .Q L_ L C 0 O r E (n .� LL N CO OU a3 J co A_ Zi O U O N C .O a) N(61 C C -O O` .s±-3O Jain 0 ~ 'O c m > mi O et; %+ C. V 'O H Z .y CD a C N m a O E N .L. O m _I N m N N E 0 a 3 r 'c m cn ai O a`) N N r — Ca N N 0 -M O N '0 c N D.'O N a A CO a N L D .NE >O N a G= m w N o = C NO j cu) a) o 0 'C C ..— 00 C p) O N O N CJ m s- c5 a aJ ri 112 od �° a�i l0 O _N y O a U .`0-. O N O V 0 CO N 0 -.L. 0 'O C m 0 0 O U « U 0 ≥ O m w r w ._ ao0)... m0 ° tm vi rn:o ED 05 m ' 03m0Y O y L N O' a3 p) 0 .. C N (O N .- —y .- O U » 0) 0 0) C N O 'O i,rC C N O a1 O C Ca -O N V a COB ti m a` moN � � oUoinrcmE t io CO � cnyo02E — o) - �'1 0 To crs rNO o "oaL 'p C =0. CNc "ou) f0m Yu_ NOYrpCC0 a E C T O 0▪ 0 x 0 O O E c0 0 0 c -oE U a O c 0 od m ONO — m co .N L N N U U O ._ N Y C N D Y .. N m O ra - P co poai 'al -d 0C `o = 35 2 32 = D O � onE ca, c ` V' Homc) I E 'O () m r ° N - N O N N O Mc E > U > E > '(6 y D. y (n a° o` 0 O N U E O LL f0 E rd Y E I- O` I- .m. O a) m � O a) H L a O C 0) A az LO 0- 0- et5 0 3 � a 2Qd < 0I- 0 aa)) =SOD 2a :: 3 E m C w 4-. c -o a w O 0 N N 0VC IP m C C TJ 0 T O C O O 4 F V m U U 0 a0 ° et et V4 0 s-1 N. r P., C r O ` O CO O r QJ 0 o 0 0 (I) NI i07 V 7 o N. o Or W a I E v c0 g. aa) re) 0 LO 2 OD co co z m ++ � xxx$'81'I X x o Co PUe dWW a `V.. C .- [ Ern xJJSd X X 0 o : o ;: o 2 trlN '� v 'C K xvSI X X Z o ' U a) i co O o N N Z = v Wo= wo= y )n E0 co E0 [ o 0 . CO O M V = li V 2 )i w 0 W 0 N 4) C a) a) v E _ ` •I co co o o co C On co Cu) x C U) O 7 u) 0CC F- Oa a) a "C o c y °: _ y C o a) CO .e m o m S • CD 'CB �-i 'o a) N O T N O •L' TO' C -o N N a O W aJ .O -Op C N d O L r yN oOONO 'o cmOm .oa) 000m Om - o aO a. ` a) m o a ≥ rocm0d � cc > " E ° 4) 0i X�w3 a°) c � o ` E M � Q.Ia._ c _ • N U 3 N C N C -co u) v o c a) C 'o a) N U O — O Q a) J a, Oct 3 ~ € ° -o to. co . c m m7occy 'o7E _ ¢ a) .c ovi ...I Y O S .O+ a C E o "o 0 = E O) „,u) N a U N fly y cap N a s,... a 'vi a) ° a? CO c 3 • o c a a — con � z o m In. 0) � '" co c w a) O a) c m c r ._ 3 a) c a) -� m c r c c m y 2 cu H ,� F a) N .- > > N o r o y a) �p o W o, ❑ to 7 0 0 t ar `-' "O (n fn c a) co -O L .J O CD N O m N — LL 'o CA EE xO7o .L.. Uo30ENao007ET� ≥ 2Oz , a Oa V o aaio0• a) 00 coo L-- cocE .cEEymccca S.� o Z o c a) 3 a) O Q O) a) is D 7 a N o 7 .C o) O 0 V t a) to C U a) .N O C "O ' rn > o) m a) C U '7) N E E C N 'O N C 7 .'O' � m 0 C d C E C o O- T n 0 > m N oa c 'o 0 a . o - yo 7 0 E o do EO u, . o cn v a)i :o o ogo o .. c � c m caa) -o 3 o)� a) t= y a) ac) a) :5 ° -o cu' 41 0 Z -0o wao °ID � > dpm , to m m au' o m > c) � 27 .-ON > ett y w = c 0 m rn2 E `0) 0) °) E ao-co ax) c E .o o ax) Etotiow yw c 3 C r. -. a v C a)N a) _O 'b o r-. CO) 0) CU a C 0 0 O O a) W I-U CL CC CU s. F-' C o 0 o 0 N N C O O W N )n 1;:- F O O C j H ° •C .O41) M co o IL Q CO N 7 a) adz o o • v z ft 0 . _S«H t % 41' x ° 2 c pue dial o - ) q E ° ISd •i 02 - / V 2 g x x X i III\ o jeis Cl) co 2 z k / -k c k a tU CI) o � � 0 � \ I k & I \ \ m\ C a � k $ 2 0 o CO \ � \ � M z CO co 0ika & t 2fk c ° % k _OOO o � kii 0_ IO/ Q. < e22 2 a) E & ets k v �6 / e a) k a) D E 2 CU) 7 k0 c 5 � RI ® ofg 0O - �C $ 41 \ k \ � 3 $ § CD Ta k 202 0 O c o ■ o m _ �_ 2 � f � $ k / � k � E 0 ® / 4k \ A\ � k � \ § § / $ 29 _i / \ 02k 5N X � E � = � � � � � � � % CA c aa- Eo 22 -.-/ 0 � � O z 050 ° "' 2 I % � e c A �k2 k —2 (s) 2k � § ° 2@ % k72 � � � 7e § ® uRmw � ' 22fa \ E $ / \ � 0C CO CA § O C \ 2 / w 0) (f E ( � 2 k / _yk S � Ek � 2 025 •> - 5mcf 2k % = 92 ok § ea co « = vO . o(6� u2E _ c a+ V -O k % k C a ^cle � 0 0 ad a § 1-0 I a. )0 - C..I c x O c CO q ■ ® k OO Cr) / in u � O O w Ca k 0 ' E O O / ca ro 6 r r 0 it 4 eiadz k 2 $ © - s. S. a) ...SBH x x • o o c c pue dm ci E .° 4.418d X X o 0 cs 0 i N "�w 't K .VSI X X n t F C 0 u N 'O 0C+ a) C . gcu N N Z •O 0 W0) zc Q Z2o W " o g0 0) .C) C 0 CN) o 0 N LLLi CoMLk *14 W •C ti m y E a •1* Z a 0 oo .. 01c 0 N = — U a) g m Z -o N fa •N• a) C j a1 C C a) 0 0 O N CC .° a L Q C O N C N E a. _> C awl O O H y N E a) @ N 0 y O C O C O -O O CO .. aEo2c ' m _ oamt g m 'oE > 0 6.-sop y 0 m ° mO > C C a) N L 0I C Q N m O co O Oc. -40 'N H a) c C ° o _0 `mLv° ° ° � � E � � m mmr �" ° UT@ Ct$oo ° d 2 N N 731- 00w -c4-- 0 a) a) c a N O N 0 C y 0 C Y .O. f iti e • aJ a N N N F. .mo)� 'omaaiy ° pa) u, Nw .o ° Ea �° o) � NC00 - 3 in g. 3 apaEi � mmcm � c °ioCE � C � Z en o ° I- E -0 cn L_ a as s .oM 0 a °oNEaa)iEo > ) -o "Eaa) om " cacU ° ° -° aC -0 > ° 0 r 0 - U ° 5CM ° ncOcOM of ° aa) L0) o ° W 'ginrn ° m CDC CA 0 Eti , N c O U N C c o C -o "O 0 0 N N a.y L O > N c ° O C o)--- ° C 0 0 E a) a) O 0 N .) "° — 0 ' N _.. ` C C CD C N O p C d N m C 9cU E 05 N '- C 3mc .- 'E a) > mcwO�' cma � m3 a® 00 0 E 0 o '� aV'i X N N o 3 m o c m -o -° c L c moot E m• o_ rNn uica�i `occwc � � a a� � - � a�ti � c ° o � f° n 0 •� Ito ° mQ :� a) ° ai � i ° o °) Qy = �, d � o -oNCcE CI) in m •= o)= ° QEac) 0s-- omxm .- Y .. EmUm ° mcoif cE ar I 0 ac) V) 'o `'CO = -0i o � > ac) 0 2' c c m 'o c c° -c 2 E �v°i c y c aa)i E 0 > w N C a) N m L C O N j a C N N a > w. N p F O =p N 2 •,-, in a° EtH Ea .gr3C)) CL) o)° 0 ° 3m302 ;u ° U� o)Do)OEa C i. 2 - V Q w 0 N N Cj C = C C 0) a) QC 00 0 dH U CD 0a) V-, a) im C+ c a- 0 N 0 0) _N NCO 0 M W . V y 0 00 d 0 o O C j Nco J O co LL Q (0) d Z a^D • _v00 03 I"I = 3 s ) 0 75 ***SW _w • 7 \ | - ` ° � i x x x x x x \\ { ) re g ) in J ) § ) � J , /_ c / § ui 0 > @t | j Wo tE \ < CD� \ � � \ {\ ` CO E o / U5 'tilt ) § jjja2 ± CD / 22 ] / - LO ; 5 , To & co ®-.- -c:1 � 7 \ CU 0,5 \ \ ± \ CO }a / ) ) 0 ) \ } fco [ \ saO ] a J2 Z 3f < ± 463 / 20_ J / Y k _ 7 E _ � ; ( § ( / \ ) � 0) } \ D \ ) o al d ( j ) 05 } � fi k ! A a a r - _ \ ; { ) ) ej •,-, ) /) \ \ § Oct) ° < { = c & r j2 « 4 ) 7 ; 6 § ; _ cn ca kTo‘hi C ( \ § \ - fE i ) 6 ® : co — .E ; [ ! — ®) - / . ) af cok \ # ) \ [ § - \ ) Z / /{ , /\ 7f / ) ) CM z ) / § » Rf � ) ( § ) •$ \ - ° § _ M ° | e ` — I § \ mr- b a ) 5 / k , � i 2 W k ) ca O D « 2SE7 § f | — - To - — — — 2C S )k o ) } ) } j _ CO 0.1 \k3 \ / CV CV O tq E \ 5 = LIO OS on $ EE 0 >,c O « j CV CV O CO N-= S3 § = ) CO0 � CV CV N- � , CO ) ***S'I.*H • Q 0 c Pue dWW d " _� g E c ,,.ISd c 0 O ar1r . o .•y N w CC 4VSI X X X X X X X V Q V o -p V N O € ++ i Cl L u7 Q' .� CC c al E 4a) O O C c0 O O O f0 O N O O O « N Lo t9 E = a N C N « .r C = O i p p O Oi 2 c) ` O CO O U m o o N) N o Cp N- .C N- p0 ,N lm O Cl) ,- W I1 J r > LL LL & _i - LL LL r LL 2 r W LL J M W '- LL W .- LC a) ta7.1 cu co y C yU = 0 co F O ..N. Z co p Cl) N 0) U (L y co >. 0 � p m ISO w . E a a) - E c U N c o c y O co Q CO a DZ aoW LL2 < XI- 4 C 00 Wv) L co fa u) C uD .c ai alj f0 a) Uerw r r c c`6 a3 V co N C70C u) O O U T. E •c O O a)T0 E 3 N R O m C c N C U ~ • . C CO fop O y C ` t+i p O E Oc -0.! aP. co) 2- C_ W J 0 O C C .6 TO 10 a) OEy O � Ica � a x cn H `.° " cad uiai � �, m C Z N O- C Q D U m .c U o 1- o c c c C O ca — U) - cv o d cvio 3a 1 o v ns 'd p a o .N O ai c E «. D � m Y � N c co x O. a7 y c p aea c co 00 0 0- CO •.?> E cv co E y d Cl) ca d a N et -E di (0 C p) o a 0 U) a) � Yv c C C ` u) E r O O C C w .y. +� C �O O (� ca .� c 0HN —3 .C a a E DL z 0 4 1. a V Q c N C . . C N N TO N TO TO f0 'fl co '= 'P '=c +�c —c w r a) a C U N a) a) w a) a) a)•� «. a I-v° Cl) CI Q_ Q. Q. ap Q. a 15 p a) r 0N.. 0 0 0 r 0 CO 0 O O OO O U) N CO O O O co N 0 O O O W r C� Is- C) r C) O O N 0 0 _ ie= O O C) R OI Q) 'ar .O CV OO O N N Cam'') 0 r 171 L E r r M N O N. O O O •LL Q ("0") d Z ,- t Co c0 ,S) ea F"� • b O {r is ***S IM c c c PUe ding E •of .w4,ISd e O o .. c0) 2 N 4 t .5 r2 .vsi X X X X X X X o O 0 V eg H E. Co) C > f�0 a) fl) Q _o CU Q Co C C C > < 'O OZ o 0,5E r `p 7 C to C N O C O) >,-.5, c o U) r V) W H O O) I J N I J N o m Nmm N M CD m m Gil `O co C C co E *� 3 m aci of E 0 iiii o W N z r~n _ c Xo Em Baca) °C 2•0 a) 0 a^ni0 a_ a) Q EE � � bD = f0 Y c W E 0 7 O O 2 y O J O u) m JZLi) OQ < U) 1 IidH0 < a) g c c 'C C To C v0) C O 'a CD a ° y a) 0 0 0 c co C dl C O O) ≥ N -� a) 'o D x o c , w„- . a O `v c a coo fn 73 N H 0 a) 0 0c 0c . aO � � y as °�), 3vi oy Z0 Z0 03 � 'E ° 0 alp; EE cO ,- 0 III as V al co c D O O • cY CO N CO N 7 as ` V /0 +L_+ a 'd eh . ' (0 m +0- fti 06) 0 O C OH 3 CD N a C � co C _ O_ C Q C co C - f0 y ° j Cn O N C c T a) f0 a) co uo) C C �O 7 C 0 C -C a) y„4 cata O Al 7 C -C - L C = cn C 0 1, a) r f0 ` O () 3 O O caw H ., c -O O) O) E w _ N.C .co L (f) L wJ y n 0 7 c > w O O 0 co 0 (II ° -3 a) c) 0 O a �) c0 O '0 0 E E cu 7r o G m O H E Ers o Z � Z � a`> c co >. rn � � aN o c/) fn c z- J p) I/) d _ N d '� fA 7 7 u! 0 O L E fn c a d 3 C O cos 0 co cp O L O o C c0 —>, O c 0) C I 0 O U q fJ ° < U ° a) � w CO C C u) •C q J o In '> != _NCC CO ° O u 0 (0 0 0 a ° NO3 ‘.E ° L- 7 C 0E -73 O C CL N D L 0.� Z Woo.a CL o a I L a — 7 c0 ° �i H oar CC '> D :Et ca ►• a) C N 46 y To f0 c0 N f0 c0 co «+ w ;- 'a+ TS � 'a C O C C C C C aJ fl. C .0. U 2 a) w w +a) O w I-v 0. Q 0_ a° a a 0. cu so Cr C - M NO 0 O O 1 4— N Cl) N Iii to. V O Cr) c cCD O O a) -O c� M O O O , `- ia 0) C. ° c E M ch c c o v • 50 ca � � f• c iiQ ri avz - to cm• (3) rn a) ret b •o y 'O xxxSeH o Co pue dWW co b cso Ern xxlSd C r y u2 N w c Ix .vsi X X x x x X X C o V H _ Ts > m m Q B Q D c 'o c > -O a -° C N C Z � �. 'O c O O •m = 3 N Q J C C O C _ o 5 C a i.t N c --C c ,_ U L (Na) m o ace E C " O j N =O > N C CO TD N u�') O n • U r m m C N Nmm N2Q CO DC N 5- m NCOJ N Z LL � � J M .w C. a) C Y N W a) 0 �_ o d ._o„ (n y E O w a o m J c U7 C N m p U V ' U U < O - U 3 pip « r �' o °coo 'a) a E0 ° YE o v) mina wSa_ f i re co c _ DZ a) ~" m C -O ≥ C LY = m o a m U ea > m N N co EO C ON C ^ @ m r N a E .c O U •-• D 0J N O ` j F. O) O m 7) -(7) co -2 co Qc � Ira co .C) — co m +�+ 'CE O vi vii as a ^y 0 0. 0 ._ O ? N RCi m p `m .°—. � '�' 0) u) °c m rn ° a") 0 � 2 � ^ • y ._.. 0 NO L N O a C≤ N w ? lo .o ~a co C 3 3 Y m a a y o 3 y o c y t o TI y o � oN Oct E3 ' `o 2`r =orno � cm m a � ° co nom o0o) -c1-6 - m 3N r +, a`) c sn > U . c a`) m ' s0) Yu co. C C u) h o m ' m a) . cc W 'O O) O) U -p c w turn - -o mrnm Ccen am17- E o >. •= a ) - Ca -- a,_I .` C c �r.. 0 oW .C y.in N m mN. w >•.C to a) u) m n c ea N ) co m m 0_ N c 'O o vi Q Orn o. a) m O � r m aci `� c cE mc -oa) co —.- nm a o on LL o � Nom Q• r N -) U - 13 2 m E .` - y 'moo Z. " c n ._ E = o) m � - O -° ao CO ° Ew = `�) Dot Wow To 0Omm mN c I O Qo m cia ,_ ,y) o QNo3 o ma) CD am a) o m L C E N co E m co U 2' O c n E C C "O U 'O U o o) m ° m m `o °- m m U nc o m c c *-4.t. CO Q '5 � _c LL o) E u_ d L a EC 7 `o i° co 0 r <n 0 M d ,. c d c r m m m m m m m e _ _ _ a) Q,c a)a) ac) N aa)) aa)) ac) ac) a) I-U a° d a a° a a C. a) M '" F■ a co C c) 0 0 O N co 00 O 0)) 0 O m c) 0 h• N- W If) r u) co CO 0 tD COO Lo c O1 ° c E v a m u-) r N d N 0) N • LL Q M 0. 12 OT) m rn m rn T _a) A ay • b O s V •ax$' c c SH c pue dWW 0 Ea ..ISd E •- o u2 r • N4 "0 re .vSI X X X X X X ry w C z U N > D 7 0 > f-- O o 9 > Q C a Q a CC C ' C C v ar ° � c u) 12 3u+ I2o ino Z Q L m E oU o c0 mm 0 w W mE c E C y 0 O °C1 Ny 2 M -0 > "• -0 1D V C 0 ru 0C1 C CO W J r > L.L. r Z' J DQ CnZJ r .c J L,C(=,j N m O N C ti 4) a a ¢ d ti 3 0 a1 E CO N C J J o O 0 C C s ~ N C 0 ..N+ CO 00 OO N 0 2. .o co 2 y 3 O p U C z E 0 a) 1Ez 0 , m o rn 0 0 O o Q m E o f U a) WO y �'.� � � Y`o g o y y d E -o Y E Y 3 co t t o p C O o 0 C a) O O C al 00 0 o 0 a) C.4 CO _I0] .-.U` d52 _ c W co cc DZ F- dd 0 _I W 0 g c o u) m C O N N O O C c co Y N -o 0 o) fa C 0_ 0 t CO 0 01 f/) a) N 0 CO) ° E 0 CO 0 l0 N N C 0 A r., co 0 N co a++ a) -0 0 Vl 3 a C co -,- _c E N co M • O = m o d 0 QI ° "° U Cu) a7 N 0) y 0 1n i co pg 41- 0) CO U Y O To C C O '0 J w a) N a1 CO D N 0 p t m 'O @ v 3 � ° ra D E0c E co N W C a3 cO "O O) r N N �a A C T_ J a) n 2 V E O) p O N a7 =0 a3 co p U t o a1 .... E c c a a = 3 -c D - c a C/] ° '0 Y N N 0 O) C pia CO CO O =p a a p W C D 3 J 0 .- 0 a c o c r o o N L E r c C in 0 t o t @ N ,C) co CO aJ et C r 0 0 o. O) O) 0 '° 'O co o a a) 47, C O` O .0 y .Q -o coco co O N ' Y '0 C N E .cl' C °' a1 C OO '@ 0 j '° a) O O 0cl) co 0) N i0 u/ O a) 0 r C 0 in c m O. to C U C >. N O N J. .0 ,C 0 0 �. 0 V - -0 CI Y o 0 E Y a Y Cu >C ,7 2 J N l0 C p C C N > C C CO � L a CO Q L a) - E .a '° D '0 -, N Z co C a~ V c d▪' 0 ° m m m m m m ^ lo 0 0 a C C C C C C 01 a a) 0 .5 cD 0 0 cu I-V d d d d 0 d w cu c ce) m N m — o o N. 0 0 0 N. 0 c :r )n o 0 O 0 0 _y N of 0 0 O 0 0 W N O y 7 r co co M co 11 ,= .0 cr CO o 0 0 0 0 CO co c = ti c E 0 Co fn r r fn • W Q q 0 7 r CO M r a1z a) z ed F-� ..,._ r 6,,,,• ;, a ...SBH lo Z • ▪ c co pue dWW X o .• �, O 0 Ern ..ISd X o p c 2 ai w N w o C2 .vsi X X X X X U O • qc u a) _ E A in 6`f > 0 [ O = C < a) C C C C n C `s v 1:7 661 E � o 'mo 3y CO Z Q `roo rm` m 0, E gE om mE 0 2 to p N O) Cr LO N CC A m Y O CA O0 U) ra rC) J rNJ ui rJ CV D < NO .w G E W _ i a) '� E N CA > N J > U) a) E a) = W O) 2 C r0 > c D ..N. a mm 42�' mEaa) 0m 16-oa aa)) Uco V m , a E 15 oo ao 00 " �� = o aa)) ° o =i °o >. N C ° = 05 CO o `m 0 N 0U) R , 0 co a w0 cn cow mcn > - C DZ j0 Cr Ni c • .O m moo d c o Ra a`) 'oa) r C Eom m o E 2 --- 0 l_ Y co .LO. c a 0 a; oE aiDm co o 35 m G U 76 d V O co 'p E Y O 'O m Cl 'O y` O 0 U EO Oce, t -o C c cc co O m m y y rn m m o a) i 4 • C. w E Ea O � a) �- ai m .." 6 ' u, � i Ci) C o ..... -a UC O) U0 C o)12 _O oOM U) Ern o m a 3 -- C • oo � > oo wo c aN V7 _ coo , 2. (n N U N O _ a) C Um ? O co .1) OI C O U O ' w N@ C U 2 Y ≤ 3 y N U C W R a E N l a C 5 a) L L Ta Oa > ._ o) aC c -O •-• d O' `p rUca ,f2 co C O O) �.O r C Y C co c - of y >. w N 'co a) ... co'y c :o c -o a) x) a o c E Et. mn � a � m o)= E 92 (15 ° Fa O a u aco0cc EEZ O > u, `o � �a CA co 'co- O U Vi I 0 a a o) .- N E co "OO U E m o)c 'O U U v D0Eo) E ° Dam $ oa E ° yE i~+ C/J 0 N y co LL J = -- Co a3 O O C O a) a) aJLa Cc U) o UUO_ cl it a) -C C N N Q' C :+ C (C t0 t0 C 'C Vp o) - o) C) O. C oo a) N N o d o I O a) a aO aO te v ;.. N r Cr C COin r O O O O OO r 0 0 O O O OO O O O O O N O N 17)1 Q O O Cr r alr N N if j a) N CO (O (��) CO CO O,j p C) d O O O O O O O CI • iiQ M CO 2ZCO CO CO CO - J] b • or.,.. Tie b rsrSSH O 25 pue dWW X Na u, a) — co E to rrISd x - G E °' G o- :- V a N 0 :11 re rVSI x X X X X x r=i w o Ec U o ..r H a i'15 0 X o6 Z °' V U U CAr � o a O 'c h Q O O Oc f� o C d N 0 a1 cV V .-- • (O M V h 2 V Y -0 ,L. co � i WC c% if, .7-)u) NCocO N > LL N zii SQ W 0 0 C 0 N 3 O N a) o c N co 3Z � 2 3Oco a � `nc�v c "" c y c Z C z �, y 0.- I- w CA = C -c w ≥ O C +� C :L' N ?, O 0 ca o Cl) Z) U) W (I) 0 0 3 CI) DU) CC CI O O a g O U) "t:1c 0 C O Z_ To To ea 'c 0 u' c a) ..r a) ` C a• L h U E N O C O D T. C 0 co Y c a 7 Q) C o To at in 0 0 ai .C co U d 0 O O uJ 3 CO C C N o th CO a O O E cr, 3 w c C C o c a) RP a o O 3 w O c0 > as c) w �, •• Y fa- m To Q1 w (a U U (0 w D -0 u) a`1 .OL. 3 o E Q ro O �- coT 0co 6 E c o arcs O V) a) t" tea C O , V +�' L O C a co O 0 7 C `7 030) c C- a O . U C (`6 LO Z C 0, E - L 7 �+ a+ ♦f� Y v fC O O w V) w _ V C C CJ) o O 0-).'"z N O O u. O O D CV CD o — c - M. C U a) i Q 3 O Q Q) C a) ,1 . < o C Q a .C a o tr.. r m 'D E N LL +r C L 4.0 CA Q co 2 2 co Cn U IL - ct lL v) O et it a c -o .-r N Q G To 'C I To ca I To O) " w+ C b a) C O c c c c c a Q c .0. U .0 .0 0. O w I-t. a a) a° a a Q. a° a 1. .- G c M O O O 0o 0) Or. u) N co O O O O 0o O) W 3 ir) a) w -0 o `r v v o RI O 1\ U C E N- N- Cr) r c u. Q co � Z .4- ,- rn rn c cc Z • Mr _a ca F'' • cc ry oU) >.ati0 ISd a .O o = dingy E o ., v a) I T �, {Lj c C v CO a w > (A O c y rno c o V y O O O ? M (i) 3 mo d' co U ti w O �+ 15 CC Q Q T �O '0 0x c c Z z Ci Q »C� J L O a M C C' E 0 CO N O .�., o h Orn rYJ - £ � � � Ncn O W «� � li (• onZC'} cCDD - U c ,' oD 3 co .... ca 0. x o c a N W d d ! � .CC'ftp �, EN CCDrn ) S ••4 Z @ Z' @ G Cu . 00m0 = = E O bi bp w N `p _ ca V)U(LQ' Q 2-WJ O CO U w V) a : d co I�a ? O `v 0 0 y -,-, I N J Q -0 -c o 2 wHOd Ur Z� C 1 O U ea 'O N . Z d z U 76 C CV N U C r U) OiLQ' JW > C N a) a) I to ea y L 2 C 0 O To c $ .. "I a> • uj 0) cu Q) .0 J C E N C y co .0 Pf' .r O E o u) N O c 0 (a V vi a) c0 " o 'CS C • N) O C 4) O — U co • CO U COfco `p w U oa C Q u) d V i L O i co > D. •.• 0 w (a c Q U O O a) � r- cco cw d E—ka m C i) V O C O (n U O N O C v C47. Z O• -� o co c a Q E O I— O G/) H Q C 0) C(Ouzel) (a O c > U) = C C U H U C J II) l�L U) O0 Fs_) C O = co o a N CC > '� (n U Z 0 (Cn0 N L 03 1- N c as C c C 0 fl) Q' LL N U' 7 (0 p C (O F-- I- c O - O.0 O O O N M c O'-" GJ -p d c a o c`0 E Z C O c c y 2 O o d O N QO @ `� �(A (AN d 'o2 O 3 cw <w. - c c ' ) a) 'p 0 C c --rn . U C c cU G. C ci a? a) c a) .- d-' O o m `y HU O d h H oY a) > o it DO C) f� CD 0 '� 0 I-1 Cc J Q 0 0 O O O < L' 0 U) cc 0 +7. CD O ca LU y CO U ' M M O fn.≤ d H R m t\ � �" � 0) M M � E �:72 iii Q� it Q M a 2 z c7, o o y U O(n(00 <o • I- 0.0 . Z v o J O Q U z ea Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures In summary, a total of 38 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A highway components. A total of 58 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 2 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package A transit components. A total of 40 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with Package B highway and transit components. A total of 67 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 20 parcels with recognized environmental conditions are associated with the Preferred Alternative. 3.17.3.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION The process of identifying, evaluating, and mitigating hazardous waste during right-of-way acquisition is identified in Chapter 3 of the CDOT Right-of-Way Manual (CDOT, 2005e). Projects requiring right-of-way or easements follow these guidelines in order to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, acquisition of contaminated property and to ensure protection for employees, workers, and the community prior to, during, and after construction. Right-of-way to be acquired may be modified during final design. The MESA contains a complete listing of sites with potential and recognized environmental conditions that were identified for the project and should be referenced to verify recommended mitigation actions (FHU, 2008d). • The right-of-way acquisition process for sites with potential and recognized environmental conditions includes three-steps (CDOT, 2005c): ► Initial Site Assessment (ISA). The ISA is similar to a MESA or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and involves site reconnaissance, historical land use review, and database search activities. An ISA is performed on properties that are to be acquired by or dedicated to CDOT. For properties that will be partially acquired for right-of-way, an ISA, based on CDOT Form #881 Initial Site Assessment Checklist and in accordance with CDOT hazardous materials guidance (CDOT EPB, 2005), should be performed. For properties that will be fully acquired for right-of-way, an ISA or site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM, 2005), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312], and CDOT hazardous materials guidance (CDOT EPB, 2005), should be performed. ► Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI). The PSI is an investigation performed on properties with potential environmental conditions. A PSI involves a drilling/sampling and analytical program to establish preliminary information regarding environmental conditions on the property. The objective of the PSI is to assist in the decision-making process regarding the potential liability associated with acquiring a property and to provide information regarding health and safety issues for construction workers and the public. • Hazardous Materials 3.17-47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The RI/FS is a detailed, comprehensive investigation that further delineates the magnitude of contamination on a property. The RI/FS details the mitigation and clean-up strategies and provides an estimate of cost for the cleanup and mitigation of contaminated property. Based on known conditions, no RI/FS was recommended for any property that would be acquired as part of the project. It is important to note that a PSI or RI/FS may be recommended based on the findings of an ISA. Sites where a PSI or RI/FS are expected to be required have been identified above (see Table 3.17-3, Table 3.17-4, and Table 3.17-5). 3.17.3.2 CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT Encountering soil and groundwater during construction without prior knowledge can potentially affect the project in terms of cost, schedule, and agency and public relations. A Materials Management Plan (MMP), as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005c), will be prepared for areas with known soil and groundwater contamination. Construction specifications will be written to include review of the MMP by the CDOT Regional Environmental Manager. Structural excavation, such as caisson and retaining wall construction, may require the dewatering of contaminated groundwater. If dewatering is necessary, groundwater brought to the surface will be managed according to Section 107.25 and 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005c) and permitted by the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division, in accordance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. • 3.17.3.3 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES/OBSTRUCTIONS Pole-mounted electrical transformers were not identified as part of site reconnaissance activities. However, relocation of overhead electrical utility lines and pole-mounted transformers will be identified in project plans and specifications. Performance of the work set forth in the project plans and specifications will be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations, and any easement agreement between CDOT and/or private landowners. All wells that are located within the proposed construction area, including any that were not previously identified, will be abandoned and plugged according to CDOT Section 202.02 in Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005c) and in conformance with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources State Engineer Water Well Construction Rules, specifically Rule 16, "Standards for Plugging, Sealing, and Abandoning Wells and Boreholes" (Colorado Department of Natural Resources, 2006). The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulates the clean up of oil and gas wells and associated facilities. The COGCC clean-up standard for petroleum contaminated soil is 1,000 pads per million (ppm) total petroleum hydrocarbons in sensitive areas with the potential to impact groundwater (COGCC, 2001). The COGCC clean-up standard for non-sensitive areas is 10,000 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons (COGCC, 2001). A typical clean-up standard used by CDOT for materials management is the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil and Public Safety (OPS) clean-up standard of 500 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons. If petroleum-contaminated soil is identified • with a concentration less than 1,000 ppm but higher than 500 ppm, CDOT would be Hazardous Materials 3.17-48 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. responsible for clean-up of this soil. A MMP and a Health and Safety plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005c), also is recommended for use when oil and gas facilities are encountered. 3.17.3.4 REGULATED MATERIALS CLEARANCE Environmentally regulated materials may be present in buildings and structures that could be demolished as part of the project. Prior to demolition of any structures, an asbestos, lead- based paint, and miscellaneous hazardous materials survey will be conducted at each parcel, where applicable. Right-of-way purchases are coordinated between Region right-of-way personnel and CDOT Property Management at the time of demolition. Regulated materials abatement will be conducted in accordance with Section 250, Environmental, Health, and Safety Management, of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005c) and relevant Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) regulatory details. Basic regulatory requirements for the type of materials that may be encountered in the project area are summarized in this section. AST and UST Management Sites with regulated ASTs and USTs will most likely be acquired for right-of-way for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. In conjunction with final design, a detailed review of the OPS files related to these properties would identify the results of any site investigations conducted, remedial systems or actions installed at the properties, and quarterly monitoring requirements. In the event that any of these sites are identified as having active • leaking tanks, coordination with OPS would be required prior to parcel acquisition. If site characterization and/or remediation have not been completed, the OPS may require CDOT to complete these activities after acquisition. The OPS requirements may include: ► Removal of any ASTs/USTs ► Excavation and management of petroleum contaminated soil ► Modifications to, or redesign of remediation systems ► Replacement of any monitoring wells destroyed during construction ► Long-term groundwater monitoring During the right-of-way acquisition process, additional properties may require similar actions depending on the results of the ISAs. Asbestos and Materials Containing Lead-Based Paint By law, all friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) must be removed from structures (including bridges) prior to demolition, and soils if landfill or building debris, buried utilities, or other ACM is encountered. The contractor performing the asbestos abatement is required to be licensed to perform such work and obtain permits from the CDPHE. Improper abatement can lead to the release of asbestos in soils and the need for soil remediation. Third party certification is required to document that the abatement was completed in accordance with regulatory requirements. The certification is needed to obtain the demolition • permits for the structures. All ACM must be bagged and labeled for transport and disposal at a facility permitted to accept ACM. Hazardous Materials 3.17-49 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Lead-based paint may need to be removed prior to demolition if the lead is leachable at concentrations greater than regulatory levels. Where lead-based painted surfaces would be removed via torching, additional health and safety monitoring requirements are applicable. Other Regulated Materials Prior to demolition, regulated materials must be removed from any structures and appropriately recycled or disposed. Bills of lading or waste manifests are usually completed to document proper management of these materials. Typical materials include polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing ballasts, fluorescent bulbs, mercury-containing equipment (i.e., switches, meters), electronic equipment, containerized regulated liquids such as paints, solvents, oil, grease, hazardous materials, pesticides, and herbicides, and CFC-containing equipment (equipment must be emptied before equipment is removed). 3.17.3.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLANS Prior to construction activities, a Health and Safety Plan, as required by Section 250.03 of the CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (CDOT, 2005c), will be developed. Construction specifications shall be written to include review of the Health and Safety Plan by the CDOT Regional Environmental Manager. In addition, some site-specific requirements may be applicable, as discussed in this section. 3.17.3.6 MINE GAS AND LANDFILL MANAGEMENT If abandoned landfills or coal mines are present below and/or within 1,000 feet of construction • activities, the Health and Safety Plan will need to include provisions for assessing and monitoring air quality at all utility trenches, drainage structures, and similar underground construction (i.e., caissons) areas prior to and during intrusive activities to ensure worker safety. Under 29 CFR Part 1926.651(g) Specific Excavation Requirements, Hazardous Atmosphere, OSHA requires testing the atmosphere of excavations greater than four feet in depth before employees enter the excavation where oxygen deficient (less than 19.5 percent oxygen) environments exist or could reasonably be expected to exist. OSHA also requires that precautions be taken to prevent employee exposure to atmospheres containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen and other hazardous atmospheres. CDOT specification 250.02 states that monitoring equipment shall be capable of meeting the set standards of 1 percent of the lower explosive limit for flammable gas with an instrument measurement increment of 1 percent and 19 percent oxygen with an instrument measurement increment of 0.1 percent. • Hazardous Materials 3.17-50 • N oPrx I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 18 Parks and Recreation • 0 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.18 PARKS AND RECREATION Parks and recreational resources include parks, recreational facilities, and open space areas which offer opportunities for what's in Section 3.18? recreation. Trails are discussed in Parks and Recreation Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. 3.18.1 Affected Environment 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences Locations of existing and proposed parks 3.18.2.1 No-Action Alternative and recreational facilities and open space 3.18.2.2 Package A 3.18.2.3 Package B areas were determined through 3.18.2.4 Preferred Alternative coordination with local jurisdictions, analysis 3.18.2.5 1-25 Highway Improvements of Geographic Information System (GIS) 3.18.2.6 Commuter Rail (Fort Collins data, and review of current comprehensive to North Metro) land use, parks, and recreation master 3.18.2.7 Express Bus(Fort Collins/ plans. See Chapter 10 for a full listing of Greeley to Denver/DIA) references. 3.18.2.8 US 85 Commuter Bus 3.18.3 Summary of Impacts 3.18.4 Mitigation Measures 3.18.1 Affected Environment There are several hundred properties within the regional study area that offer recreational opportunities. They generally can be categorized into one of the following: • ► Regional Park and Recreational Facilities. The regional study area has several park and recreational parcels that are important regional amenities. Regional parks typically involve jurisdictional partnerships that contribute to the development and maintenance of the regional park. These areas serve residents throughout the Front Range and are regionally recognized. Also, privately and publicly owned and managed golf courses in the regional study area qualify as regional resources. ► Community Parks and Recreational Facilities. While generally smaller than regional parks, community parks and recreational resources provide opportunities for community activities and facilities. Community parks often have a diverse selection of amenities that serve residents within 3 miles of the park. ► Neighborhood Parks and Recreational Facilities. These parks are smaller parcels that generally serve residents within 0.5 mile of the park. They often include playgrounds, picnic facilities, paved trails, tennis courts, basketball courts, large grass areas, and landscaping. Neighborhood parks are commonly dispersed throughout a city according to a typical 0.5 mile radius and feature easy access for residents in the surrounding area. ► Open Space. Open space areas include land and water parcels that remain in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state. The intention of open space acquisition varies from growth management to habitat protection and/or passive recreation. However, it must be noted that not all open space allows public access or use. Many areas defined as open space are used as conservation easements on agricultural lands. Smaller open space parcels are often coordinated with neighboring open space acquisitions to create buffers or corridors. Jurisdictional authority belongs to either the county open space department or • municipal parks and recreation departments. Open space properties included in this section are publicly accessible and offer one or more recreational opportunities, usually in the form of trails. Parks and Recreation 3.18-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • For the purpose of this analysis, only properties that could be affected by project improvements were evaluated. These properties include those that could be directly affected and those that could incur indirect effects as a result of proposed improvements. Properties with the potential for direct impacts include those that fall within 100 feet of any proposed physical improvement. Indirect effects to parks resulting from improvements could include visual impacts, noise impacts, or changes to access. Properties within 500 feet of either side of improvements were assessed for indirect effects. These properties are shown in Figure 3.18-1. Table 3.18-1 identifies and provides summary information about each park or recreational resource. • • Parks and Recreation 3.18-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources within 500 Feet of Proposed Improvements LEGEND .-i• /l/ Study Corridors ,' 85 Highways / y \. •�. Arterial Roads , ' 4 \ a Cities & Towns j -1 i i,,;l n;!n : \ L.J Regional Study Area i '494-- - 19 I I Aull 4 City Boundaries ! , 144 34 2) 2 } I ._ I County Boundaries ' I ,m v 4 - 30; _ LafCf� fat+:f�x;C + I �p` I ' t 10.w7 151. Indsn t 13 25 Ii,;.H.,R• i 21 (33 I \ Greeley , 1 �4J - f, - •20 3 Lovelan(4 S 34 • 12 , N I.31,1 \ 1 IuSalleL39 /' I:dmp.p„ .m��<r;nss 6041- y li I—\dral ,._:.'f +' z4) N''"k" 1 -ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA 2 -ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA I ta 3 - BARNES --. £ % 4 - BIG THOMPSON PONDS SWA i 5 - BIG THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDOR WILDLIFE AREA 0o 6 - BOOMERANG MUNI. GOLF 6--�_.� �j31 i 7 BOULDER CREEK ESTATES PARK 8 - CITY OF CUERNAVACA PARK L .ongmont 37 i 9 - CIVIC CENTER PARK (THORNTON) 'e X28 ��'l I { knu• i 10 - COLINA MARIPOSA NATURAL AREA f ,r ,�n„6 a I 11 - COLLYER PARK '___I i --to Hi.--•,,,- 12 - COMMUNITY COMPLEX 13 - COYOTE RIDGE NATURAL AREA/MCKEE FARM /Bootie' �: r1 I* I 14 - CREEK SIDE PARK l _ o &aeon fat lugn,9 - 15 - FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR REGIONAL OPEN SPACE/NATURAL AREA �'rr'l la 16 - FOX HILL GOLF COURSE & COUNTRY CLUB } `ie - • 17 - GRANT PARK 1 c.-�� 18 - HAZALEUS NATURAL AREA ��-�'' .a _ - _ 19 - JACK CHRISTENSEN TRACK l 7it 20 KIRKVIEW J '"rI _-_--�'' r n '.1'� '1 21 - LARIMER COUNTY FAIRGROUND \"-'�= �a r a "� r<�0 I. y 22 - LEE MARTINEZ PARK - l •\. r r —in Ns. I 1■� \ i23 - LINCOLN PARK ;,,<,1 ,,,,,1--. (41) 0 - 24 - LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDOR r `• .. q I ► - 9J 25 LONG VIEW FARM I ` - ,, 36 nn '' . ,/ 26 LONGVIEW PARK �, \ .t7 9a , ,/ 27 - LUTHER PARK \ / _ 28 MCWHINNEY HAHN SCULPTURE PARK • / / r 29 - PEARSON PARK ---( I 2 '\ 1 �;.. , ' ./I_I I 30 - REDTAIL GROVE NATURAL AREA F' 6, — I 31 - RIVER VIEW PARK 11 Denver v_ 32 - RIVERSIDE PARK {{ _ 33 - RIVERSIDE PARK ENTRANCE r 1 / l� 33 - RODARTE PARK '1/4r 34 - RUNNING DEER NATURAL AREA tEirm 35 - SANDSTONE RANCH - 36 - sPANGLER PARK 0 2 4 6 8 10el t= 37 - ST VRAIN r iJ Mlles North I' L + -4t t 38 - THORNCREEK MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE w 39 - TOWN PARK 0 40 - WASHINGTON PARK 41 - WILLOW BROOK PARK ammismommea Parks and Recreation 3.18.3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources within 500 Feet of Proposed Improvements Map Resource Managed ID Name Amenities Reference Location Type by Arapaho Fishing ponds, West of 1-25, north of City of 1. Bend Natural boating, trails, Harmony Road, Open Space Fort Collins Area parking areas Fort Collins 2. Ran 9 Archery Trailhead, parking West of 1-25, City of area Fort Collins Open Space Fort Collins Natural Area Batting cages, softball fields, Community 3. Barnes Park playground, West of I-25, adjacent to Park and City of concessions, Big US 287 Recreation Loveland Thompson River Facility access Big Regional Park Colorado 4 Thompson Fishing, hunting, At SH 402, east of 1-25, Ponds State restrooms Greeley and Recreation Division of Wildlife Area Facility Wildlife Big Thompson Fishing, hiking, North of SH 402, east and Regional Park Town of 5. River nature viewing west of 1-25, along the Big and Recreation Johnston Corridor Thompson River corridor Facility Wildlife Area Golf course, • Boomerang driving range, Adjacent(north)to Regional Park green,Practice City 6. Municipal US 34, and Recreation of Golf Course miniature golf Greeley Facility Greeley course, pro shop, grill Boulder Fishing, Southwest of SH 119 and Regional Park City 7. Creek nature , hiking, CR 7, and Recreation y of Estates viewing East of Longmont Facility Longmont City of Softball fields, Community 8. Cuernavaca sandbar, river ' - ' Park and Denver Recreation Denver Park access, sculptures Facility Civic Center Community East of 1-25, Park and City of 9. Park Trail, pond (Thornton) Thornton Recreation Thornton Facility Colina 10. Mariposa Trail, paved bike Adjacent to US 287, Open Space City of Natural Area trail Fort Collins Fort Collins Tennis and volleyball courts, Community 11. Collyer Park restrooms, East of US 287, Longmont Park and City of playground Recreation Longmont shelters Facility • Parks and Recreation 3.18-4 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Table 3.18-1 information. cooperation. transportation. Parks and Recreational Resources within 500 Feet of Proposed Improvements (cont'd) Map Name Amenities Reference Location Resource Managed ID Type by Evans East of US 85 on 37th Community Gym, dance studio, Park and City of 12. Community exercise room Street, Recreation Evans Complex Evans Facility Coyote South of Trilby Road, 13. Ridge\McKee Wildlife refuge,trail west of Shields St., Open Space City of Farm Natural recreation Larimer County Ft. Collins Area Neighborhood 14 Creekside Trail Adjacent to US 287, Park and City of Park Fort Collins Recreation Fort Collins Facility Fossil Creek Reservoir Multi-use, water Regional Park Larimer 15. Regional storage,waterfowl and West of Timberline, and Recreation County and Open wildlife refuge, trail east of 1-25 Facility/Open City of Space/Natural recreation Space Fort Collins Area Fox Hill Golf Golf course, putt putt, Adjacent to SH 119, Regional Park Privately 16. Course and driving range, tennis and Recreation Country Club courts, swimming Loveland owned III pool Facility Adjacent to 1-25, north Neighborhood 17. Grant Park Trail, picnic area of 104th Avenue, Park and City of Northglenn Recreation Northglenn Facility 18 Hazaleus Paved bike trail Adjacent to US 287, Open Space City of Natural Area Fort Collins Fort Collins Jack Adjacent to existing Community Colorado 19 Christensen Track, trail, open grass BNSF tracks, CSU Park and State Memorial area bleachers campus, Recreation University Track Fort Collins Facility Driving range, putting Community 20. Kirkview Park green, chipping area, Kirkview and Park and City of paved cart paths Mountain Street Recreation Loveland Facility Indoor arena, outdoor Larimer arena, events center, East of 1-25, north of Regional Park livestock pavilions, and Larimer 21. County exhibition halls, US 34, Recreation County Fairgrounds camping facilities, Loveland Facility multipurpose fields Playground, picnic Community Lee Martinez area, basketball and Adjacent to US 287, Park and City of 22. Park tennis courts, Fort Collins Recreation Fort Collins restrooms, softball field, Facility parking area • Parks and Recreation 3.18.5 Final EIS NORTH I-2S August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources within 500 Feet of Proposed Improvements (cont'd) Map ID Name Amenities Reference Resource Managed Location Type by Neighborhood 23. Lincoln Park Playround, picnic 10th Ave. and 9th St. Park and City of area, public art Recreation Greeley Facility Little Trails alongside Thompson Adjacent to 1-25, Town of 24. River Little Thompson Berthoud Open Space Berthoud Corridor River Long View South of Ft Collins, Larimer 25. Farm Future Trail west of 287 and east Open Space County of Shields St. Neighborhood 28 Longview Small pond,trail Adjacent to SH 119, Park and City of Park Longmont Recreation Longmont Facility Playground, 2 Neighborhood 27. Luther Park shelters, Bisected by US 34, Park and City of restrooms, picnic Greeley Recreation Greeley tables, BBQ pits Facility McWhinney Restrooms, West of 1-25, Community 28 Hahn drinking fountain, north of US 34, Park and City of • Sculpture public telephone, Recreation Loveland Park sculpture Loveland Facility Community 29 Pearson Baseball fields West of US 85 Park and City of Park near Fort Lupton Recreation Fort Lupton Facility Redtail Adjacent to US 287, Ci of 30. Grove Trail Fort Collins Open Space Fort Collins Natural Area Skateboard Neighborhood 31 Riverview structure and West of 85, Park and Town of Park Platteville Recreation Platteville ramps Facility Lake, trails, softball fields, Community Riverside playground area, Adjacent to US 85, Park and Town of 32. Park picnic tables, Evans Recreation Evans basketball courts, Facility soccer fields, h' restrooms Softball field, Neighborhood 33. Rodarte Park restrooms, picnic 9th Ave and A St. Park and City of area Recreation Greeley Facility • Parks and Recreation 3.18-6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.18-1 Parks and Recreational Resources within 500 Feet of Proposed Improvements (cont'd) Map Name Amenities Reference Location Resource Managed ID Type by Running Trail, recycling Just west of 1-25, south of City of 34. Deer Natural area (mulch) Prospect Road, Fort Collins Open Space Fort Collins Area Softball fields, soccer fields, trails, picnic tables, Community Sandstone West of 1-25, Park and City of 35. Ranch playground, skate south of SH 119 Recreation Longmont park, restrooms, BBQ grills, Facility concession stand Neighborhood 36. Spangler Picnic, shelter, East of US 287, Park and City of Park playground Longmont Recreation Longmont Facility Fishing piers, Regional Park 37 St. Vrain campsites, picnic Just west of 1-25, and Colorado State Park tables, BBQ grills, Longmont Recreation State Parks dump station, trail Facility Thomcreek Driving range, Regional Park 38. Municipal miniature and Just west and adjacent to and City of • Golf Course regulation golf I-25, Thornton Recreation Thornton course facility Neighborhood 39. Town Park Playground, 3 West of US 85, Park and Town of picnic shelters LaSalle Recreation LaSalle Facility Neighborhood 40. Washington Playground, 301 Maple. Park and City of Park basketball court Ft Collins Recreation Fort Collins Facility Pavilion, picnic Neighborhood 41 Willow tables, BBQ grills, West of 1-25 at 120th Park and City of Brook Park stream, Avenue, Westminster Recreation Westminster playground, trail Facility 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences The evaluation of direct impacts to parks and recreational resources was determined by overlaying the construction footprint for each alternative on GIS-mapped parks and recreational resources, and calculating the acres impacted. Indirect effects also were evaluated for each alternative. Indirect effects related to the commuter rail (primarily noise, visual, and access) are based on the assumption that the rail will run every 30 minutes during peak hours and every 60 minutes during off-peak hours. Currently freight rail operates at a frequency of four to six trains per day. Additionally it should be noted that while freight trains can be over a mile in length, commuter • trains will consist of no more than four cars per train resulting in a shorter duration under which Parks and Recreation 3.18-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • indirect effects could be experienced. For more detailed explanation of the assessment methods related to noise and visual quality see Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration and Section 3.14 Visual Quality. 3.18.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would not conflict with nor would it promote parks and recreational goals identified by municipalities and counties in the regional study area. Impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative would include impacts to recreational resources associated with projects already programmed, maintenance of structures, and improving interchanges to meet minimum safety requirements. Impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for the build alternatives described below. However, effects on parks and recreational resources in the regional study area would arise as a result of transportation needs unmet by the No-Action Alternative. These would include the increased traffic congestion and impaired mobility to and from regional study area resources. Increased air emissions and noise could negatively affect recreationist's experience in regional study area parks. Portions of the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, St. Vrain State Park, Willow Brook Park, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Municipal Golf Course would receive noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. 3.18.2.2 PACKAGE A Direct impacts to parks and recreational resources in the regional study area associated with • Package A are displayed in Table 3.18-2. Additional information about the impacts is summarized in the discussion that follows the table. Table 3.18-2 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package A Component Map ID No. Parks and Recreation Original Area of Impact Number Resource Acreage (Acres) A-H2 2 Arapaho Bend Natural Area 269.56 4.11 A-H2 3 Archery Range Natural Area 55.37 0.09 A-H2 6 Big Thompson Ponds State 48.61 0.11 Wildlife Area A-H2 20 Larimer County Fairgrounds 234.00 1.30 A-H2 25 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture 4.50 1.21 Park A-H3 22 Little Thompson River Corridor 100.92 2.04 A-T2 32 Sandstone Ranch 229.31 2.75 A-T2 7 Boulder Creek Estates 220.60 5.72 Total 1162.9 17.33 • Parks and Recreation 3.18-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. The following discussion summarizes direct and indirect impacts by component: Component A-H 1: Safety Improvements There are no impacts to parks or recreational areas associated with safety improvements north of SH 14. Component A-H2: General Purpose Lanes There are five properties that would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. Improvements between SH 14 and Crossroads include the addition of one general purpose lane in each direction for a total of six general purpose lanes, plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60. These improvements would impact the Archery Range Natural Area and the Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Archery Range Natural Area. Widening would occur to both sides of the highway in this location and a new frontage road would tie into the entrance into the natural area resulting in a slight impact of 0.09 acres to the eastern edge of the park. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Access to the natural area would be improved. Indirect Effects. In order to minimize direct impacts to the park, a 300-foot wall, 11 feet to 15 feet in height, is proposed to run along the edge of the park. This would have the potential to inhibit the view to the east. • Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Impacts at this location would result from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north of the existing lot used by CDOT in the northwest quadrant of Harmony Road and 1-25. The City of Fort Collins had previously negotiated an easement in this area of 4.03 acres anticipating future expansion of the lot. The proposed parking lot expansion, the addition of a new ramp and improvements to the bridge over Cache la Poudre would impact a total of 8.15 acres, of which 4.03 acres is part of the easement, totaling a net loss of 4.11 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access to Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out. No indirect effects are anticipated at Arapaho Bend Natural Area as a result of the proposed improvements. From Crossroads south to SH 60, one additional lane as well as one auxiliary lane is anticipated in each direction, for a total of six lanes. Three properties would be impacted: Larimer County Fairgrounds, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, and McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Larimer County Fairgrounds. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and the auxiliary lane on the eastern side of 1-25. These impacts would occur in the non-recreational portion of the Fairgrounds. The new eastern frontage road directly adjacent to the improved highway would impact approximately 1.30 acres of the westernmost edge of the park. Some of the lights adjacent to 1-25 could be impacted as a result of the improvement, but the remainder of complex would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Larimer County fairgrounds as a result of the proposed • improvements. Parks and Recreation 3.18.9 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and the auxiliary lane on the west side of 1-25 as well as the transition of the ramp from the US 34 interchange south on to 1-25. The combined improvements would impact the easternmost edge of the wildlife area. Walls would be placed in this area in order to minimize impact and the area impacted was reduced to 0.11 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the wildlife area would not be diminished in utility. Indirect Effects. Noise impacts to portions of the park would exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. An increase is also anticipated with the No-Action Alternative and the increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Impacts at this location would result from reconfiguration of the US 34 interchange from a fully directional cloverleaf to a three-quarter directional interchange. The northbound off-ramp from 1-25 to US 34 would impact the southernmost portion of the park, resulting in 1.21 acres impacted. This impact would result in loss of trails at the park in addition to a number of sculptures. Indirect Effects. The elevation of the ramps adjacent to the park would be 20 to 30 feet in the air decreasing visibility to the park and from the park to the Front Range. Since part of the established "purpose" of the park is to "showcase art"; decreased visibility to and from the park could inhibit this function and result in an indirect effect. Component A-H3: General Purpose Lanes • Improvements associated with this component include the addition of one general purpose lane in each direction on 1-25 for a total of six lanes from SH 60 to SH 66 and from SH 52 to E-470 for a total of eight lanes. One property would be impacted by improvements associated with this component: Little Thompson River Corridor. Little Thompson River Corridor. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and auxiliary lane on the west side of 1-25 as well as the transition of the southbound ramp at the newly configured SH 56 interchange. Current access to the recreational area would be removed and replaced with a new access from the south ending at a cul-de-sac at the recreational area. The new right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp and the new access would result in 2.03 acres of impact adjacent to the west side of the highway. Aside from the new access, none of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the recreational area would not be diminished in utility. Indirect Effects. West-side property access would be maintained except for the northwest park road connection to the service road. This connection would be severed, but access would still be available to the south. East-side property access would be modified so that recreationists would use the new service road. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of St. Vrain Park would experience noise impacts that exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. Although an increase is also anticipated with the No-Action Alternative, the increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. • For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Parks and Recreation 3.18-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Component A-114: Structure Upgrades There are no parks or recreational resources directly impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of Willow Brook Park, Civic Center Park, and Thorncreek Municipal Golf Course would experience noise impacts which exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation, for more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Component A-T1: Commuter Rail Fort Collins to Longmont There are no parks or recreational resources impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. Component A-T2: Commuter Rail Longmont to North Metro There are two properties which would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. They are Sandstone Ranch and Boulder Creek Estates. Sandstone Ranch. Impacts at this location would result from the new double-tracked commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor in Thornton. The new track would impact 2.75 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119. A small portion of the trail in the northwest • corner of the park would be impacted, but none of the other features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Sandstone Ranch as a result of proposed improvements. Boulder Creek Estates. Impacts at this location would result from the new commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor in Thornton. The new track would impact 4.08 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119. The proposed rail line would then turn south to follow along the west side of Weld County Road 7 where it would again enter Boulder Creek Estates property impacting an additional 1.64 acres for a total of 5.72 acres. A proposed trail following St. Vrain Creek beneath SH 119 would be accommodated. Plans for additional facilities including parking, picnic tables and restrooms are still conceptual, however the City of Longmont has coordinated with the project team and they have agreed that these plans will not be precluded by construction of the rail line at this location and that their future plans will set aside right-of-way for the commuter rail tracks. Coordination will continue with the City of Longmont to insure that park amenities will not be affected (see letter from City of Longmont in Appendix B). No indirect effects are anticipated at Boulder Creek Estates as a result of proposed improvements. Component A-73: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver There are no parks or recreational resources impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. • Component A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to DIA There are no parks or recreational resources impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. Parks and Recreation 3.18-11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.18.2.3 PACKAGE B Impacts to parks and recreational resources in the project area associated with Package B are displayed in Table 3.18-3. Additional information about the impacts is summarized in the discussion that follows the table. Table 3.18-3 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with Package B Component Map ID Parks and Recreation Original Area of Impact Number No. Resource Acreage (Acres) B-H2 2 Arapaho Bend Natural Area 269.56 4.94 B-H2 3 Archery Range Natural Area 55.37 0.14 B-H2 6 Big Thompson Ponds 48.61 0.24 State Wildlife Area B-H2 20 Larimer County Fairgrounds 234.00 4.13 B-H3/B-T1 22 Little Thompson River Corridor 100.92 2.78 B-H2/B-T1 25 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture 4.5 1.21 Park Total 712.96 13.44 • The following discussion summarizes direct and indirect impacts by component. Component B-HI: Safety Improvements There are no impacts to parks or recreational areas associated with the safety improvements north of SH 14. Component B-142: Tolled Express Lanes There are five properties which would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. Two properties would be impacted by the addition of the buffer-separated lanes between SH 14 and Harmony Road: the Archery Range and the Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Archery Range Natural Area. Improvements in this location would be similar to those associated with Package A except the impact would be slightly larger resulting from the wider footprint associated with the tolled express lanes. The impact would be .14 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Access to the natural area would be improved. Indirect Effects. Indirect effects associated with noise are the same at this location as those described in Package A. A similar increase is anticipated in conjunction with the No-Action Alternative. • Parks and Recreation 3.18-12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Impacts at this location would be similar to Package A resulting from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north, the addition of the ramp and the bridge modifications at Cache la Poudre. The City of Fort Collins had previously negotiated an easement in this area of 4.03 acres with CDOT anticipating future expansion of the existing parking lot. These improvements would impact 9.35 acres which exceeds the easement totaling a net loss of 4.94 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access to Harmony would be improved from the existing one lane entrance to a four lane entrance with right in and right out movements only. No indirect effects are anticipated at Arapaho Bend Natural Area as a result of proposed improvements. Between Harmony Road and SH 60, there are two barrier-separated lanes proposed in each direction to accommodate the tolled express lanes, as well as the proposed bus rapid transit (BRT). Three properties would be impacted as a result of these improvements: Larimer County Fairgrounds, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, and McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Larimer County Fairgrounds. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the two barrier separated lanes on the eastern side of the general purpose lanes. Impacts at this location would occur at the non-recreational portion of the park. In addition, there would be a BRT station in the median with a pedestrian bridge terminating at the eastern side of the highway. The barrier separated lanes in conjunction with the BRT station would impact 4.13 acres of the westernmost edge of the park. Some of the lights adjacent to 1-25 could be impacted as a result of the improvement, but the remainder of complex would not be • diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Larimer County Fairgrounds as a result of the proposed improvements. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of the two barrier separated tolled express lanes on the western side of the general purpose lanes. These lanes would also accommodate the BRT. The combined improvements would impact the easternmost edge of the wildlife area. Walls were placed in this area in order to minimize impact and the acreage impacted was reduced to 0.24 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Indirect Effects. Indirect effects associated with noise are the same at this location as those described in Package A. A similar increase is anticipated in conjunction with the No-Action Alternative. McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Impacts at this location would be the same as those associated with Package A. Indirect Effects. Indirect effects associated with visual impacts at the sculpture park are the same at this location as those described in Package A. Component B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes Improvements between SH 60 and E-470 include the addition of two buffer separated lanes in each direction for a total of six general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. BRT would • share the tolled express lanes. There is one property which would be impacted by the improvements associated with this component. It is the Little Thompson River Corridor. Parks and Recreation 3.18-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Little Thompson River Corridor. Impacts at this location would be similar to Package A resulting from the right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp and the new access to the area. Total acreage impacted would be 2.03 acres adjacent to the highway at the west. Aside from the new access, none of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. The difference in acreage between Package A and Package B results from a wider typical section associated with Package B. Indirect Effects. Impacts to access at the Little Thompson River Corridor would be the same as those described in Package A. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of St. Vrain Park would experience noise impacts which exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation, for more detailed information. Please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Improvements between E-470 and US 36 include the addition of one buffer separated lane in each direction for a total of six general purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. BRT would share the tolled express lanes. There are no properties that would experience direct impacts through improvements associated with this component. Indirect Effects. Portions of Civic Center Park, Willow Brook Park, and Thorncreek Municipal • Golf Course would experience noise impacts which exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Component B-TI & B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver/D1A Impacts to the Archery Range Natural Area, Arapaho Bend Natural Area, Larimer County Fairgrounds, Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, and McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park are identical to those described in Component B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes. 3.18.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Impacts to parks and recreational resources in the regional study area resulting from the Preferred Alternative are displayed in Table 3.18-4. The discussion that follows summarizes direct and indirect impacts by component. • Parks and Recreation 3.18-14 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.184 Impacts to Parks and Recreational Resources Associated with the Preferred Alternative Component FEIS Parks and Recreation Original Area of Impact Map ID No. Resource Acreage (Acres) 2.91 1-25 Highway Arapaho Bend Natural (I-25 Highway Improvements/ 1 Area 269.56 Improvements)/ Express Bus 0.16 (Express Bus) 1-25 Highway 21 Larimer County 234.00 1.72 Improvements Fairgrounds 1-25 Highway 24 Little Thompson River 100.92 1.31 Improvements Corridor 1-25 Highway McWhinney Hahn Improvements 28 Sculpture Park 4.50 1.21 Commuter Rail 7 Boulder Creek Estates 220.60 5.72 Commuter Rail 35 Sandstone Ranch 229.31 1.45 Total 1058.89 14.48 3.18.2.5 I-25 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS • There are four properties that would be directly impacted by the improvements associated with this component. Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Impacts to this natural area would result from the reconfiguration and upgrades to the 1-25/Harmony Road interchange ramps, the widened template of 1-25 to accommodate the tolled express lanes and additional general purpose lanes and the bridge modifications at the Cache la Poudre River. Impacts as a result of these improvements would total 2.91 acres. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative calls for the expansion of a carpool lot to the north of the existing lot in the northwest quadrant of Harmony Road and 1-25 to accommodate parking for the express bus component which would impact another 0.16 acre for a total of 3.07 acres. See the discussion below in Section 3.18.2.7 for more details. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result of the Preferred Alternative, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access to Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out. No indirect effects are anticipated at Arapaho Bend Natural Area as a result of the proposed improvements. Indirect Effects. Portions of Arapaho Bend Natural Area would experience noise impacts which exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. Larimer County Fairgrounds. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of a general purpose lane and a tolled express lane creating a wider footprint of 1-25 . These • impacts would occur in the non-recreational portion of the fairgrounds. Improvements would impact approximately 1.72 acres of the westernmost edge of the fairgrounds. Some of the Parks and Recreation 3.18-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • lights adjacent to 1-25 may be impacted as a result of the improvement, but the remainder of complex would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Larimer County Fairgrounds as a result of the proposed improvements. Little Thompson River Corridor. Impacts at this location would result from the addition of a general purpose lane and a tolled express lane creating a wider footprint of 1-25 and the transition of the southbound ramp at the newly configured SH 56 interchange. Current access to the recreational area would be removed and replaced with a new access from the south ending at a cul-de-sac at the recreational area on the west side of 1-25. The new right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp, and the new access, would result in 1.31 acres of impact adjacent to the west side of the highway. Aside from the new access, none of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the recreational area would not be diminished in utility. Indirect Effects. West-side property access would be maintained except for the northwest park road connection to the service road. This connection would be severed, but access would still be available to the south. East-side property access would be modified so that recreationists would use the new service road. McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park. Impacts at this location would result from reconfiguration of the US 34 interchange from a fully directional cloverleaf to a three-quarter directional interchange. The northbound off-ramp from 1-25 to US 34 would impact 1.21 acres in the southernmost portion of the park. This would affect an area that currently contains trails and a number of sculptures. These impacts would likely result in full acquisition of the park. • Indirect Effects. The ramps adjacent to the park would be elevated 20 to 30 feet in the air decreasing visibility to the park and from the park to the Front Range. Part of the established "purpose" of the park is to "showcase art"; decreased visibility to and from the park may inhibit this function and result in an indirect effect. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area, Civic Center Park, Willow Brook Park, Thorncreek Municipal Golf Course, and St. Vrain State Park would experience noise impacts that exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increases would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. In order to remove direct impacts to Archery Range Natural Area, a 300-foot wall, 11 to 15 feet in height is proposed to run along the edge of the park. This would have the potential to inhibit the view to the east. 3.18.2.6 COMMUTER RAIL (FORT COLLINS TO NORTH METRO) There are two properties which would be directly impacted by the improvements associated with this component. Sandstone Ranch. Impacts at this location would result from the new commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from City of Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor in Thornton. The new track would impact 1.45 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119. This area is outside of the reserved right-of-way coordinated between CDOT and the City of Longmont during the planning process for this park. A small portion of the trail in the northwest corner of the park would be impacted but • Parks and Recreation 3.18-16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. none of the other features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. No indirect effects are anticipated at Sandstone Ranch as a result of proposed improvements. Boulder Creek Estates. Impacts at this location would result from the new commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor in Thornton. The new track would impact 4.08 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119. The proposed rail line would then turn south to follow along the west side of Weld County Road 7 where it would again enter Boulder Creek Estates property impacting an additional 1.64 acres for a total of 5.72 acres. A proposed trail following St. Vrain Creek beneath SH 119 would be accommodated. Plans for additional facilities including parking, picnic tables and restrooms are still conceptual, however the City of Longmont has coordinated with the project team and they have agreed that these plans will not be precluded by construction of the rail line at this location and that their future plans will set aside right-of-way for the commuter rail tracks. Coordination will continue with the City of Longmont to insure that park amenities will not be affected (see letter from City of Longmont in Appendix B). No indirect effects are anticipated at Boulder Creek Estates as a result of proposed improvements. Indirect Effects to Other Parks. Portions of Collyer Park would experience noise impacts that exceed CDOT's criteria for noise abatement. The increases would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information please refer to Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. • 3.18.2.7 EXPRESS Bus (FORT COLLINS/GREELEY TO DENVER/DIA) One property would be impacted as a result of this component. Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Impacts at this location would result from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north and the resulting need for an additional water quality pond partially located on the natural area property. The City of Fort Collins had previously negotiated an easement in this area of 4.03 acres anticipating future expansion of the lot. Construction associated with this component would require an additional 0.16 acre beyond the area negotiated as an easement. As described above in Section 3.18.2.6, the proposed parking lot expansion, the ramp modifications and improvements to the bridge over the Cache la Poudre River would impact a total of 3.06 acres. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. The enlarged parking area would continue to serve users of the natural area while access to Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one lane entrance to a four lane entrance with right-in and right-out movements only. No indirect effects are anticipated at Arapaho Bend Natural Area as a result of proposed improvements. 3.18.2.8 US 85 COMMUTER Bus There are no parks or recreation resources directly impacted as a result of the proposed improvements associated with this component. • Parks and Recreation 3.18-17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.18.3 Summary of Impacts No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would result in deteriorating access due to increasing congestion throughout the regional study area. Additionally, eight properties would incur noise impacts, which would be similar to the noise impacts incurred with the build alternatives. Package A Eight properties would incur direct use as a result of implementing Package A. A majority of these impacts could be categorized as minor, leaving the features and attributes of the parks intact and not diminishing any utility to the resource. The exception is McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park, where the trail is being impacted, as well as a number of the sculptures. This would likely result in a full acquisition of the park. The proposed improvements in Package A would provide increased mobility and access to and from these recreational resources. Indirect effects would occur at a number of properties, including visual impacts at the sculpture park, change in access at one location, and noise impacts at nine properties. These same properties would experience similar noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. Temporary impacts to the parks would occur since construction of transportation improvements associated with Package A would likely result in the need for haul roads, • equipment access, staging areas, batch plants, and/or other construction activities. All impacts resulting from construction are temporary in nature and would not permanently or adversely affect the function or physical aspects of the park or recreational resource. Temporary construction occurring on properties where long segments of highway widening and/or new roadway and associated retaining wall construction, would encompass a full range of construction activities over a prolonged time frame, but would not last the entire duration of the construction project. This may include roadway detours and multiple phases of highway construction. These activities are likely to extend several months. Work zones would continuously change until relatively close to final build-out of that segment of the project. More localized construction activity such as bridge demolition and reconstruction or culvert installations and culvert extensions, represents a more focused effort and require lesser time frames to complete because much of the work requiring the temporary construction easement would be demolition and preliminary infrastructure construction, and occupancy of the easement would be completed before site's highway decking and widening portion of the project were completed. All ground disturbing and debris generating construction process would be contained by erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed as part of approved stabilization and stormwater management plans. All disturbed areas would be returned to their original contour, vegetation and landscape appearance in cooperation with and direction from the resource jurisdictional authorities. • Parks and Recreation 3.18.18 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Package B Six properties would incur some direct use as a result of implementing Package B. At most of the properties, impacts could be categorized as minor, leaving the features and attributes of the parks intact and not diminishing any utility to the resource. The exception is McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park, where the trail is being impacted, as well as a number of the sculptures. Indirect effects would occur at a number of properties, including visual impacts at the sculpture park, change in access at one location, and noise impacts at eight properties. These same properties would experience similar noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. The proposed improvements in Package B would provide increased mobility and access to and from these recreational resources. Package B would have similar temporary impacts as Package A. Preferred Alternative Six properties would incur some direct use as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative. At most of the properties, impacts could be categorized as minor, leaving the features and attributes of the parks intact and not diminishing any utility to the resource. The exception is McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park, where the trail is being impacted, as well as an area containing a number of the sculptures. Impacts at this park are identical among the three • build alternatives. This would likely result in a full acquisition of the park. Indirect effects would occur at a number of properties, including visual impacts at the sculpture park, change in access at one location, and noise impacts at nine properties. These same properties would experience similar noise impacts as a result of the No-Action Alternative. Benefits from implementation of the Preferred Alternative include improved access and mobility to and from these recreational resources. The Preferred Alternative would have similar temporary impacts as Package A and Package B. 3.18.4 Mitigation Measures During the development of the alternatives, extensive efforts went into modifying design to avoid and minimize impacts to parkland wherever possible. Additional information about this process is documented in Chapter 5 Section 4(f) Evaluation. Coordination with the local agencies having jurisdiction at the resources is ongoing. Any impacts incurred at these resources as a result of proposed improvements would be discussed with the local jurisdictional agencies to determine the appropriate mitigation. All ground disturbing and debris generating construction processes will be contained by erosion and sediment control BMPs designed as part of approved stabilization and stormwater management plans. All disturbed areas will be returned to their original contour, vegetation • and landscape appearance in cooperation with and direction from the resource jurisdictional authorities. Parks and Recreation 3.18-19 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Some techniques that may be used to mitigate impacts incurred at these areas will include but not be limited to: ► Coordinating with the local jurisdiction to prepare for construction at the site, including public safety and security measures, and providing signed detour and alternate access information. ► Replacing vegetation with native grass and shrubs or irrigated turf as pre-construction conditions dictate. Mitigation ratios and plant selection and placement will occur through coordination with the local agencies having jurisdiction. ► Using BMPs to limit erosion during construction. See Section 3.23 Construction Impacts for more detail. ► Compensating for acquisition of the resource. Location of any lost access will be negotiated with park representatives during final design. ► Rebuilding park features, such as trails, elsewhere on the park site. ► Fencing will be included in all areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. • • Parks and Recreation 3.18.20 • N ORTH 1-25 PM EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3. 19 Section 6 (f) • • Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation_transportation. 3.19 SECTION 6(f) 3.19.1 Existing Section 6(f) Resources For four decades, the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of what's in Section 3.19? Assistance to States and Urban Parks 3.19 Section 6(f) (L&WCF) has provided funding for various 3.19.1 Existing Section 6(f)Resources parks and recreational facilities across the 3.19.2 Environmental Consequences nation. The L&WCF program was 3.19.2.1 No-Action Alternative established by the L&WCF Act of 1965 3.19.2.3 Package A 3.19.2.3 Package B (Public Law 88-578)which is now codified 3.19.2.4 Preferred Alternative as 16 USC 460. Under this act, the 3.19.3 Coordination and Mitigation Secretary of the Interior provides funds to the states to plan, acquire, or develop outdoor recreation facilities. Section 6(f) of the Act states in part that: "No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accordance with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least • equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location." In the state of Colorado, L&WCF is administered by Colorado State Parks and identification of L&WCF properties for this project was coordinated through Colorado State Parks. Coordination with Colorado State Parks is documented in Appendix B. Three properties within the regional study area were developed with L&WCF grant assistance: ► Pearson Park near Fort Lupton ► Grant Park in Northglenn ► Riverside Park in Evans Figure 3.18-1 in Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation shows the locations of each of these parks. Pearson Park is located west of US 85 near Fort Lupton on approximately 13 acres. Facilities at the park include a baseball field. Grant Park is located directly east of 1-25 in Northglenn on approximately 14 acres. Facilities include a picnic area and a bicycle and pedestrian path. Grange Hall Creek is located within the park. Riverside Park is located adjacent to US 85 in Evans on approximately 2.47 acres. Facilities at the park include a lake, trails, softball fields, playground areas, picnic tables, basketball courts, • soccer fields, and restrooms. Section 6(F) 3.19-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.19.2 Environmental Consequences 3.19.2.1 No-ACTION ALTERNATIVE There would be no impacts to any of the 6(f) properties associated with the No-Action Alternative. 3.19.2.2 PACKAGE A There would be no impacts to any of the 6(f) properties associated with Package A. 3.19.2.3 PACKAGE B There would be no impacts to any of the 6(f) properties associated with Package B. Mitigation for water quality will be required in the vicinity of the Grant Park property however; avoidance measures were taken to ensure that no park property would be impacted. Water quality standards will be accomplished through the inclusion of an underground stormwater treatment device at this location. 3.19.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE There would be no impacts to any of the 6(f) properties associated with the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation for water quality will be required in the vicinity of the Grant Park property; however, avoidance measures were taken to ensure that no park property would be • impacted. Water quality standards will be accomplished through the inclusion of an underground stormwater treatment device at this location. 3.19.3 Coordination and Mitigation Coordination has occurred with Colorado State Parks Department to insure that potential impacts to any Section 6(f) resources have been properly analyzed. The build Alternatives would not result in any impacts to Section 6(f) properties and therefore no mitigation is necessary. • Section 6(F) 3.19-2 • NORTH I-25ll EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.20 Farmlands • 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.20 FARMLANDS Under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, the U.S. Department of What's in Section 3.20? Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) defines farmlands, 3.20 Farmlands as follows: 3.20.1 Affected Environment 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences ► Prime Farmland. Land that has the best 3.20.2.1 No-Action Alternative 3.20.2.2 Package A combination of physical and chemical 3.20.2.3 Package B characteristics for producing food, feed, 3.20.2.4 Preferred Alternative forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It can 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures economically produce sustained high yields of these crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming practices. ► Unique Farmland. Land other than prime farmland that is used to produce specific high- value food and fiber crops. It can economically produce sustained high yields of these specialized crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming practices. ► Farmland of Statewide Importance. Land that has been identified by criteria determined by the Colorado State Experiment Station, the Colorado State Department of Agriculture, and the Colorado State Soil Conservation Board. • ► Farmland of Local Importance. Land that has not been identified as having national or statewide importance yet may have local significance based on the goals of the community and of the various agricultural enterprises that maintain a viable agricultural community. Lands that are currently located within 2000 census "urbanized areas" are not included in the calculation of existing prime and unique farmlands or farmland of statewide importance. Urbanized areas are generally developed with impermeable (paved) surfaces that are not available for agricultural production. Lands that are committed to urban development are also not considered farmland. 3.20.1 Affected Environment To determine whether any prime or unique farmland soils or farmland soils of statewide or local importance are present in the North 1-25 regional study area, data were downloaded from the 2009 NRCS Soil Data Mart database. The Brighton, Longmont, Fort Collins, and Greeley offices of the NRCS also were contacted. The NRCS identified seven categories of soil types that are protected in the regional study area. Five of these categories were grouped together because all five represent prime farmland only if certain conditions are met. The resulting three categories are listed by county in Table 3.20-1 and their locations are shown in Figure 3.20-1. • Farmlands 3.20-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Table 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area Study Area Farmland of Local Farmland of Statewide Prime Farmland If Certain Counties Importance Importance Conditions Are Present* (acres) (acres) (acres) Adams County 0 1,288 27,010 Boulder County 0 10,016 36,898 Broomfield County 0 488 7,034 Denver County 0 0 0 Jefferson County 0 0 0 Larimer County 3,544 6,760 76,817 Weld County 29,401 58,819 248,297 Regional Study 32,945 78,371 396,056 Area Total: *Land would be considered prime farmland if it were: (a)irrigated (b)protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (c)drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (d)irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium (e)prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility)x C(climate factor)does not exceed 60 Source:NRCS, 2009. According to the most recent Census of Agriculture (2007), there are 37,054 farms in Colorado. Twenty-one percent of these farms are located in the seven counties that make up the regional study area. This represents over 3.5 million acres of land devoted to agricultural • activities. Primary crops produced in the regional study area include wheat, corn, hay, and sugar beets. Land in the regional study area is also used to raise livestock and poultry. Between 2002 and 2007 the number of farms and acreage of farmland increased in every county in the regional study area except Larimer (2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 8: Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Land and Buildings, and Land Use: 2007 and 2002). A farm is defined as property that produces or can produce $1,000 worth of agricultural product in a year (Meyers, B., 2010). Therefore, a property owner that owns more than one head of livestock (i.e., cattle, horses) could be considered a farm. According to Bill Meyers of the USDA Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service, one reason for the recent increase in the number and acreage of farms within the area correlates with a concerted NRCS effort in the most current Agricultural Census to find those farms that, while smaller in size, fit this definition. The inclusion of these smaller farms contributes to the increase in farms and farmland acreage between 2002 and 2007. Additionally, the NRCS has been re-assessing and re-calculating farmland statistics to eradicate inconsistencies on how different counties classify prime and important farmlands (Steiner, A., 2010). For those Soil Data Mart data (used to compute the farmland acreages in Table 3-21) that were released in the last few years, the following statement was included to justify the drastic changes in farmland acreages: "Prime and other important farmland classification ratings were reviewed and, where necessary, edited to be more consistent in accordance with National Soil Survey Handbook standards." This statement also lends explanation to the substantial increase in acreages of farmland. Of the counties in the regional study area, Larimer and Weld counties contain the largest • number of farms with 1,757 and 3,921 farms, respectively. In 2007, 61 percent of all farms in Larimer County were less than 50 acres. Farms of 500 acres or more represented just under Farmlands 3.20-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. ten percent of all farms in the county. Many of these farms are located in the rapidly growing North 1-25 corridor, where much of the existing land is being re-zoned and converted for residential and commercial development. In Weld County, 34 percent of all farms were less than 50 acres in 2007. Farms of 500 acres or more represented less than 18 percent of all farms in the county. Further, Weld County was the only county in 2007 to have more than 400 farms greater than 1,000 acres in size. Most of these larger farms are located outside the North 1-25 corridor. • • Farmlands 3.20-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 3.20-1 Farmlands in the Regional Study Area LEGEND ^/ Study Corridors _ i '•-.., •� �•• Highways et• \ • �t ` t•• Arterial Roads /1-0,n, • . f h t ( % 4853 cJ i Regional Study Area 287 / , •~ t N. City Boundaries l �.-� • ��— # a Cities & Towns l ` i ntt ( nllnis ,,,.; ` 4 ,% ti Prime and Important Farmlands I {- 14 . ?1 Farmland of local importance %; ,257t! �0 ' ~ a. V Farmland of statewide importance I t s = , ` �� `: lJ ` e , Prime farmland if irrigated: Prime farmland* I `,':,' tr/ S` '" \` '� �� •1' 287 • ' .>! , Land would be considered Prime Farmland if it were 4'Jrcxiso'•� '• • • i (a) Irrigated - r r — l i l r.,::n , (b) Protected from flooding or not frequently I t� - -- t flooded during the growing season I " a t 1'-- Greeley (c) Drained and either protected from flooding or l F{ y ' not frequently flooded during the growing season �,•- jr t (d) Irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium j '' • (e) Irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C - Loveland - e j 34 (climate factor) does not exceed 60 ;. �: - 3w• / I j a# t Au.l ' l'' 1 � • % j ► la Sail Lan pion i itrcrvry % - a l w tI d r • . • ' -f 'r iiikf, 85 • �I , Y • 7, t , $ .„ . ; i .p l / ..ak _ O1 0 y, t ; l•w • 4._ 1 �' / \ r.<. .I ' 5 F t., r -1 I i • Longmont fhki:e n1a : lone i • / ' -t om • ; - • l 'I ?f3- ... a . , 4,4 lr Gunoairel' l 4. 1 WI i 1 AS q't,brnr tl. , wr t•. ta .. ' '1 \Boulder r% 7 ''\ 7 IAuisvale :- ia�l ...... rasdaMi+ i^ I • t \, _NOrthglene / ' 36 \ v tlxr t-I. r �' \ {7 1 \ / -1-- L. . 1 1.•••"-P J. / i i/ �.' t Denver/.- j A"1""%•,,..,........< 0 2 4 6 8 10 • •___�• ii----`i ii Miles North I \ i_.N1/4\� Farmlands 3.20-4 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences Direct impacts to farmland occur when cultivated lands are converted to impervious surface or acquired for transportation right-of-way. Acres of important farmland lost as a result of the implementation of any of the build packages were calculated for each alternative using GIS and the limits of construction as defined through project design. Indirect impacts to farmland occur when a farm is severed or access is limited in such a way that it prohibits continued agricultural use. For example, if a feature such as a canal, access road, or ditch is impacted, the productivity of the farm could be indirectly impacted. Indirect effects also include farmland that would likely be converted as a result of accessibility to new or improved transportation facilities. For this analysis, indirect impacts were evaluated qualitatively and based upon the findings contained in Section 3.1 Land Use as they pertain to the potential for indirect, induced growth effects. 3.20.2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would not directly impact Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance. As discussed in Section 3.1 Land Use, growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the study area's urbanized areas in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. As major roadways such as 1-25 become more congested, development would likely be pushed towards outlying areas to avoid this congestion. This would hasten the conversion of • agricultural land as market forces push towards the path of least resistance. This may also be the case for many of the east-west and alternate corridors (e.g., US 34, SH 7, SH 52, SH 402) in the regional study area. The more dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to the No-Action Alternative would result in greater land consumption. The continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands. The extent of this impact would depend upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. 3.20.2.2 PACKAGE A As shown in Table 3.20-2, Package A would result in the direct conversion of 1.80 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 44.52 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 930.81 acres of farmland that is considered prime only if certain conditions are present. Because Package A improvements occur primarily along existing transportation corridors, no farms would be severed or lose access. Impacts are a result of the acquisition of right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing I-25 and BNSF corridors and the development of parking lots, transit stations, and water quality detention ponds. As shown in Table 3.20-2, most of the farmland impact is associated with Component A-H2, which consists of widening to accommodate six general purpose lanes in each direction between SH 14 and SH 60, plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60. • Farmlands 3.20.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.20-2 Package A- Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component Impacts(Acres) Component Farmland of Farmland of Prime Farmland if Local Importance Statewide Certain Conditions Total Importance are Present* A-H1 0.29 0.57 73.67 74.53 A-H2 1.05 8.62 384.19 393.86 A-H3 0.0 14.21 192.87 207.08 A-H4 0.0 0 2.39 2.39 A-T1 0.46 5.14 146.12 151.72 A-T2 0.0 15.98 131.57 147.55 A-T3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A-T4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Package A 1.80 44.52 930.81 977.13 *Land would be considered prime farmland if it were: (a)irrigated (b)protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (c)drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (d)irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium (e)prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility)x C(climate factor)does not exceed 60 Ongoing conversion of agricultural land to residential and urbanized land uses would continue throughout the regional study area, particularly along 1-25. As discussed in Section 3.1 Land • Use, the provision of commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the regional study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). As a result, the rate at which environmental resources (including farmlands)would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the regional study area would likely be slowed. This would be the case along the 1-25 corridor in particular where substantial agricultural lands exist. Indirect Impacts Outside of established urban centers, farmland would likely be converted to residential and commercial development around transit stations and along feeder bus routes. In some cases, this development is already planned. For example, the City of Longmont has plans for TOD along the proposed alignment at SH 66. However, without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities and would consume more land. 3.20.23 PACKAGE B As shown in Table 3.20-3, Package B would result in the direct conversion of 1.66 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 35.39 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 888.31 acres of farmland that is considered prime only if certain conditions are present (e.g., if the land is irrigated, protected from flooding, drained, and reclaimed of excess salts). Because Package B improvements occur primarily along existing transportation corridors, no farms would be severed or lose access. Impacts are a result of the acquisition of right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing 1-25 corridor and the development of parking lots, transit stations, and water quality detention ponds. As shown in Table 3.20-3, most of the farmland • impact is associated with Components B-H2 and B-H3, which consist of widening to accommodate additional buffer or barrier separated tolled express lanes in each direction. Farmlands 3.20-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.20-3 Package B - Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component Component Impacts (Acres) Farmland of Farmland of Prime Farmland if Local Importance Statewide Certain Conditions Total Importance are Present* B-H 1 0.26 0.34 73.66 74.26 B-H2 1.29 10.28 443.93 455.50 B-H3 0 24.77 331.11 355.88 B-H4 0 0 37.41 37.41 B-T1 0.11 0 2.20 2.31 B-T2 0 0 0 0 Total Package B 1.66 35.39 888.31 925.36 *Land would be considered prime farmland if it were: (a)irrigated (b)protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (c)drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (d)irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium (e)prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I(soil erodibility)x C(climate factor)does not exceed 60 Ongoing conversion of agricultural land to residential and urbanized land uses would continue throughout the regional study area, particularly along 1-25. As discussed in Section 3.1 Land Use, the introduction of bus rapid transit along the 1-25 corridor would represent a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive • for transit oriented development. As a result, growth would continue to be market-driven and would continue to expand towards the east, spreading—rather than shifting—in its concentration. Indirect Impacts The more dispersed development pattern that could occur in response to Package B would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. 3.20.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE As shown in Table 3.20-4, the Preferred Alternative would result in the direct conversion of 5.05 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 46.61 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 925.50 acres of farmland that is considered prime only if certain conditions are present. The Preferred Alternative includes commuter rail, highway, express bus, and commuter bus components. Because the Preferred Alternative occurs primarily along existing transportation corridors, no farms would be severed or lose access. Impacts are a result of the acquisition of right-of-way immediately adjacent to the existing 1-25 corridor and BNSF corridors and the development of parking lots, transit stations, and water quality detention • ponds. As shown in Table 3.20-4, most of the farmland impacts are associated with the highway component, which consists of widening to accommodate general purpose lanes and buffer separated tolled express lanes in each direction. Farmlands 3.20-7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.204 Preferred Alternative- Direct Impacts to Farmlands by Component Impact Areas Component Farmland of Local Farmland of Statewide Prime Farmland if Importance Importance Certain Conditions Total are Present' Commuter Rail 0.23 11.39 162.82 174.44 Highway 4.09 30.38 730.04 764.51 Express Bus 0.73 4.84 32.64 38.21 Commuter Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Preferred 5.05 46.61 925.50 977.16 Alternative *Land would be considered prime farmland if it were: (a) irrigated (b)protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (c)drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season (d)irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium (e)prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility)x C(climate factor)does not exceed 60 Ongoing conversion of agricultural land to residential and urbanized land uses would continue throughout the regional study area, particularly along 1-25. As discussed in Section 3.1 Land Use, the provision of commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the regional study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). As a result, the rate at which environmental resources (including farmlands)would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the regional study area would likely be slowed. This • would be the case along the 1-25 corridor in particular where substantial agricultural lands exist. The introduction of express bus transit along the 1-25 corridor would represent a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for TOD. As a result, growth would continue to be market-driven and would continue to expand towards the east, spreading—rather than shifting—in its concentration. Indirect Impacts The more dispersed development pattern that could occur in response to the highway component of the Preferred Alternative would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. With regard to the commuter rail component, farmland adjacent to the BNSF railroad corridor would likely be converted to residential and commercial development around transit stations and along feeder bus routes. In some cases, this development is already planned. For example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. However, without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely • develop at typical suburban densities and would consume more land. Farmlands 3.20-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures Coordination with the NRCS was conducted throughout the planning process and is contained in Appendix B. Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form for Corridor Type Projects, was submitted to the Brighton, Longmont, Fort Collins, and Greeley service centers in September 2007, and again in December 2010 when the Preferred Alternative was finalized. This form calculates the relative impacts of Package A, and Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on farmlands within the regional study area under two methods. The first method identifies the total amount of both Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide and Local Importance present within the regional study area and weighs them against the converted amount of farmland by each build package within the regional study area. The second method, which addresses impacts to specific types of farmland involves a Site Assessment evaluation conducted by local NRCS representatives. The Site Assessment evaluation is based on criteria such as the percent of a site being farmed, protection provided by the state and local governments, and the availability of agricultural support services nearby. Site Assessment scores are used to estimate the value of the impacted farmland and can add up to a maximum of 260 points. If the score is less than 160, no further action is required. The scores assigned to each package by the NRCS service centers are provided in Table 3.20-5. Table 3.20-5 NRCS Site Assessment Scores Service NRCS Site Assessment Score Center • Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Brighton 132.7 127.7 187 Longmont 138.7 169.7 133 Fort Collins 175.0 186.0 204 Greeley 164.0 167.0 202 Total acreage impacts for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are approximately 977, 925, and 977 acres, respectively. Site Assessment scores for the Preferred Alternative are the highest of all the alternatives. Therefore, it can be concluded that because the Preferred Alternative is tied for the greatest acreage of impacts with Package A, and has the highest Site Assessment scores in general, the Preferred Alternative would result in greater impacts to farmlands than Package A or Package B. For scores above 160, there is the potential for an adverse impact. Therefore, coordination with the local NRCS office was conducted to determine whether avoidance and/or mitigation measures are required for those areas with Site Assessment scores exceeding 160. Representatives from the Adams County, Boulder County, Larimer County, and Weld County NRCS offices were contacted to discuss mitigation measures. All representatives recommended keeping construction materials, tools, and vehicles within proposed ROW for the project. The less encroachment onto agricultural land will result in less impact to farmlands. During final design of the project, the conversion of non-prime farmland will be considered before converting prime farmland to minimize overall impacts to prime farmland. • Farmlands 3.20.9 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Farmlands 3.20-10 • N oRm I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.21 Energy • • Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.21 ENERGY 3.21.1 Introduction What's in Section 3.21? This section evaluates and compares 3.21 Energy energy consumption and greenhouse gas 3.21.1 Introduction emissions of the No-Action Alternative and 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences each of the build packages, as measured in 3.3.2.1 Direct Impacts British thermal units (BTUs). The regional 3.3.2.2 Indirect Impacts transportation system currently consists of 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures passenger automobiles, trucks, and buses. All build packages include these modes of transportation. Package A and the Preferred Alternative also include commuter rail. Energy calculations were based on regional travel demand model projections, combining data from Denver Regional Council of Government (DRCOG) and North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO). Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources are directly related to energy consumption and primarily result from the combustion of fossil fuels in vehicles. These emissions are normally presented as the total carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent released, and take into account the global warming potential of each chemical species emitted from a source. For example, combustion sources emit small amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), which has a global warming potential 310 times that of CO2. Each ton of N2O emitted is equivalent to • 310 tons of CO2. All greenhouse gas emissions presented in this section are presented as a CO2 equivalent. Energy sources for transportation are most commonly petroleum-based fossil fuels for automobiles, trucks, trains, and buses. None of the build packages under consideration would use vehicles that run on electric power. 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences Energy would be consumed for both the construction and operation of transportation improvements associated with all the build packages. This section evaluates and compares energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of the No-Action Alternative and each of the build packages (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative), using the following methodology: ► The forecast year used was 2035. ► Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data were estimated using the North 1-25 Regional Travel Demand Model (see Table 3.21-1). ► The regional study area was defined as the regional transportation network, which was modeled for air quality and travel demand purposes. ► Regional energy consumption in BTUs was based on estimated changes in VMT, in accordance with the FTA's document, Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria (FTA, 2006b). • Energy 3.21-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated from BTU estimates developed from the energy consumption estimate multiplied by standard tons of CO2/ million BTU conversion templates, provided in the FTA's Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria (FTA, 2006b). Table 3.21-1 Daily VMT in the North I-25 Study Area Alternative Total Daily VMT (Auto, Truck, and Bus) No-Action 52,410,000 Package A* 52,763,857 Package B 52,616,000 Preferred Alternative* 52,810,857 *Package A and the Preferred Alternative include annual rail miles traveled in addition to auto, truck and bus miles; Package B includes only auto,truck, and bus miles traveled Source: North 1-25 Regional Travel Demand Model. Daily energy consumption and carbon dioxide production were used to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions in this project. Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated by multiplying the daily energy use (tons of CO2 per million BTU) by CO2 conversion factors taken from the New Starts Criteria (FTA, 2006b). Passenger miles were assumed to be 96.6 percent automobiles, 3.0 percent heavy trucks, and 0.4 percent buses of the total regional annual VMT. For Package A and the Preferred Alternative, rail miles traveled accounted for less than 1 percent • of total VMT. 3.21.2.1 DIRECT IMPACTS Table 3.21-2 summarizes estimated daily energy consumption as a result of operation of the No-Action Alternative and the three build packages. Table 3.21-2 Energy Consumption by Alternative (Daily BTUs) Alternative BTUs Consumed Difference from No-Action Percent (millions) (millions) Difference No-Action 358,960 N/A N/A Package A 361,900 2,940 0.8% Package B 360,371 1,411 0.4% Preferred Alternative 362,222 3,262 0.9% Source: FTA, 20066 and North 125 Regional Travel Demand Model. Table 3.21-3 summarizes estimated daily CO2 production as a result of operation of the No-Action Alternative and the three build packages. • Energy 3.21-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.21-3 Daily CO2 Production by Alternative Alternative CO2 Difference from No-Action Percent Produced (Tons)* (Tons) Difference No-Action 27,560 N/A N/A Package A 27,787 227 0.8% Package B 27,668 108 0.4% Preferred Alternative 27,811 208 0.9% *CO2 Produced:All greenhouse gas emissions in the study area are presented as CO2 equivalents. Source: FTA, 20066. The No-Action Alternative would utilize less energy than any of the build alternatives. As shown in Table 3.21-2, Package A and Package B would use approximately 0.8 percent and 0.4 percent more energy, respectively, than the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would use 0.9 percent more energy. The rationale for the increase in energy usage is that the added capacity provided by the build packages would attract VMT from other areas. This, in turn, would create an increase in daily VMT within the regional study area and a corresponding decrease from surrounding areas as more trips would be diverted. These same trends were found for CO2 production. All alternatives would produce more CO2 (greenhouse gas emissions) than the No-Action. As shown in Table 3.21-3, Package A and Package B would increase CO2 production by approximately 0.8 percent and 0.4 percent, • respectively, over the No-Action Alternative; the Preferred Alternative would increase CO2 production by 0.9 percent. Over time (after 2035) it would be expected that the rail components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption because more trains could easily be added. The tolled express lanes (TEL) in Package B and the Preferred Alternative would eventually fill up (with bus riders and carpoolers) especially in the segments of the corridor with only one TEL in each direction. The transit stations associated with all packages would, over time, serve as a stimulus to transit oriented development. This transit oriented development would potentially reduce energy consumption due to mixed use and higher density development, which would reduce trips. In addition to energy consumed during operation, energy would be consumed for construction of Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative. This is described in Section 3.23 Construction Impacts. 3.21.2.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS Based on projected growth rates developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, population in the study area is anticipated to increase by 68 percent between 2005 and 2035 under the No-Action Alternative and build packages. This increase would result in substantial additional demands for energy for construction of new homes, in gasoline for automobiles, and in natural gas and electricity for utilities. It is anticipated that the additional energy demand would be directly proportionate to the increase in population as land development occurs. • Energy 3.21-3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation of energy consumption during operations will focus on a reduction in daily VMT. This reduction can be achieved through successful transit oriented development, congestion management, and effective improvements to the roadways. These measures all work to reduce overall traffic time by increasing travel efficiency. • • Energy 3.21.4 • N oRTh I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.22 Public Safety and Security • 0 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.22 PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 3.22.1 Affected Environment What's in Section 3.22? The following section describes existing 3.22 Public Safety and Security conditions, programs, and services 3.22.1 Affected Environment associated with public safety and security in 3.22.1.1 Safety the regional study area. 3.22.1.2 Security 3.22.1.1 SAFETY 3.22.2 Environmental Consequences 3.22.2.1 No-Action Alternative Public safety refers to existing potential 3.22.2.2 Package A 3.22.2.3 safety hazards and existing operating publicPackage B 3.22.2.4 Preferred Alternative safety providers. 3.22.3 Mitigation Measures Highway Safety Highway safety, as it relates to crash rates and geometric deficiencies that affect them, is analyzed in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. This section focuses on the facilities and services available to commercial vehicles as they relate to safety. Approximately 16 percent of daily traffic (approximately 8,000 vehicles) on 1-25 is made up of trucks and commercial freight traffic. The Interstate Commerce Commission has set hours of • service limits for commercial drivers that legislate mandatory rest periods after every 10 hours of driving. In Colorado, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates a demand for 760 rest area parking spaces during the peak hour along interstates carrying more than 1,000 vehicles per day. There is currently a supply of 167 truck parking spaces statewide (FHWA, 2002). Truck parking is available to drivers at state rest areas and at travel plazas and truck stops. Within the regional study area, the Poudre Rest Area is located at Prospect Road (Exit 268) and 1-25. There are two travel plazas: one located at SH 119 and 1-25 (Exit 240), and one at Johnson's Corner, located at Exit 254,just south of SH 402. Transit Safety Transit safety reflects existing transit facilities in the regional study area. There are currently four transit service providers in the regional study area. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is by far the largest transit provider, serving the Denver Metro Area at the far southern end of the regional study area (south of SH 7 and in Longmont). RTD contracts for security on vehicles and at stations, as well as park-n-Ride facilities. They also use video surveillance on vehicles and at selected stations, as well as park-n-Ride facilities. TransFort (Fort Collins), Colt (Loveland), and The Bus (Greeley), the other three transit service providers, all rely on coordination with local police departments through their dispatch centers for security services. In addition, Fort Collins has full lighting at its transfer centers (Downtown, CSU, and South) and video surveillance at the Downtown and Colorado State University (CSU) Transfer Centers. • Public Safety and Security 3.22.1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Freight Railroad Safety Three freight railroads operate in the regional study area—the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Great Western Railroad (GWR). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reports at-grade crossing safety using accident predictions FRA, 2007a). An accident prediction is a value that indicates the statistical likelihood of a collision at a crossing given the crash history at that location, physical conditions (including crossing protection), and both roadway and railway traffic levels. BNSF operates their Front Range Subdivision along the west side of the regional study area. The railroad operates four to six trains per day on this line. The rail network interacts with the roadway at 90 locations. Two crossings along the existing BNSF alignment are currently grade separated: US 34 in Loveland and US 287 on the northern edge of Berthoud. Otherwise, the existing BNSF crossings are all at-grade. The annual accident prediction for the 90-crossing corridor is 2.37, implying that two to three collisions can be expected in this corridor each year. This prediction is an analysis of the rail corridor unaffected by transportation projects. UPRR operates three lines in the regional study area, one of which would be utilized in proposed future transit projects. The Boulder Industrial Lead historically connected Commerce City to Boulder via Thornton and Erie. This line is anticipated to be used for the North Metro FasTracks rail service south of SH 7. North of SH 7, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) removed the bridge over 1-25 near Erie when the interstate was widened. Rail service along this line has been cut back, and there are no trains that operate north of SH 7 today. There were five active at-grade crossings between SH 7 and 1-25 before • service was discontinued. GWR operates several lines throughout the regional study area, though there is only one interaction between a GWR line and a roadway. Emergency Service Providers There are 114 fire, police, and emergency service provider locations within the regional study area, as shown in Figure 3.22-1. In interviews with Larimer and Weld county sheriffs' officials, it became clear that each responder uses 1-25 differently depending on the circumstance. Lane widths on the interstate are considered too narrow for most fire vehicles and police cars. Weld County responders usually consider it too congested to respond in minimal times, but Larimer County responders rely on it as one of the few continuous north-south routes in the county. Fire. There are numerous fire districts within the regional study area including volunteer, rural, and metro fire departments. In addition to fire and emergency response services, these departments are often responsible for disaster/emergency planning and fire prevention education in their communities. There are 61 fire stations providing fire and emergency response services to residents throughout the regional study area. Each town, city, and county within the regional study area has individual fire facilities or combines its fire services with other jurisdictions. For example, the North Metro Fire Rescue District provides service to the cities of Broomfield and Northglenn as well as portions of unincorporated Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld counties. • Public Safety and Security 3.22.2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • _ information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3.22 1 Emergency Service Provider Locations within the Regional Study Area LEGEND ^III Study Corridors /4/ Highways - -'I- /\/ Arterial Roads 11 _ 851 � 643 J.J Regional Study Area . City Boundaries j' • Pierce , O Cities & Towns I F,ori' , lies Police, Sheriff, or Emergency * Service Providers y— - 257 a°I` pitga . 1 m I on •e '� It di IN ; ,:: .•Loveland a i .l C .i.°ail 9 Evans ' .S.NIB 1 I • / - _J LaSalle . �, l .— .1 . alYlsl. i� ,-s L! eerthoad . — II M NikeeI 13 1-. III i • I ,, Me , ,, /.' S / , I I Platteville - 7 �' �' Oni lone i; 4. iI Voilrnar O I ir ill i. • '. Firestone twat '413 , .laden : j ._i— Gunbarrel ' 1_ j , lie ..... Vele* "" V1 O :� — ' /=k4, r I ,r Wananbc,_ Boul r - r _ - ' w, , .e• bibs .- t. ist'q�411e - ' 'r . I —.�- i,fit_. r, ,\ `\ �.. " I� . *_ I /9 s • C:. ern I A "-� ... _ # ,motor:,,, it I _ \ / 72_ I - 4 f • I ,' • fienver• . �� is I / • \ 1 j 4SW • 0 2 4 6 8 10 ��; i �!` ii , .- __ Iii Miles North Ill _ __ ,.,,, 4 ' h••-...,, Public Safety and Security 3.22-3 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • In addition, a fire and police station is proposed and would be located east of Johnson's Corner and south of CR 16. This fire and emergency facility would service the Johnstown Fire Rotation District with officers also present from the police. It would be a new and additional service for the fire protection district that is currently north of US 60 at CR 15. The location was selected because of its proximity to 1-25 and because of community development near the 1-25 corridor. Driveway access would be to CR 16, which has access to 1-25 at Exit 254 and at SH 402. Police. There are 21 police departments and 8 sheriffs' offices providing public safety services to residents throughout the regional study area. Sheriffs in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties coordinate search-and-rescue efforts, handle civil processes and evictions, provide animal control services, respond to hazardous material events, and provide public safety services to residents living in unincorporated portions of the regional study area. In addition to these county services, each municipality within the regional study area has individual police departments geared toward crime prevention, law enforcement, and traffic management. Sheriff's offices and police departments that serve the regional study area are shown by location in Figure 3.22-1. Emergency Service. Emergency medical response services are provided to regional study area residents by local fire departments and hospitals. In addition to these service providers, numerous independent agencies provide emergency response services in the regional study area. Several jurisdictions have joined together to meet their emergency response needs. One example is the Weld County Paramedic Services, which was created through a joint agreement between Weld County and Greeley to serve both incorporated and unincorporated communities in Weld County. • 3.22.1.2 SECURITY Security refers to crime, and related crime-prevention methods and services. In general, security in the regional study area is typical of many growing portions of the nation, with property-related crimes being most prevalent (theft, vandalism, etc.). The various policing entities described above respond to these crimes. Currently there is a security presence at the existing carpool lots along 1-25. County and municipal police officers patrol the existing carpool lots on an as-needed basis in response to police calls and reported crimes. There has been growth in crime rate related to property (vehicle break-ins and/or thefts), illegal drug trafficking, and illicit sexual activity at these facilities. In response, CDOT and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) are working cooperatively to improve carpool lots at the following locations including installing lighting and security cameras: ► SH 34 — installation of security cameras ► SH 402 — installation of security cameras and entrance lighting ► SH 60 — implementation of access control (one-way in and out with curb added between the frontage road and the park and ride) ► SH 119— installation of security cameras Both CDOT and NFRMPO have identified available funding to make these improvements. • Public Safety and Security 3.22.4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.22.2 Environmental Consequences Public transit and transportation projects could impact public safety and security by increasing the demand for police and fire protection in the communities they serve, or by increasing or decreasing the potential for accidents involving pedestrians or automobiles. Potential impacts to safety and security as a result of the No-Action Alternative and the build packages were evaluated. The differences in public safety and security between the No-Action Alternative and the three build packages are difficult to quantify. There is a potential for moderate increases in theft, vandalism, and other emergency services at commuter rail and bus stations but no quantifiable evidence to show that these increases would result from implementation of any build package. 3.22.2.1 No-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Because the No-Action Alternative involves the existing highway and bus system, local jurisdictions and the Colorado State Patrol would continue to provide security. The existing railway system would be maintained by the freight companies who operate them. As congestion increases, there would be a greater likelihood of both highway and railway crashes within the regional study area and emergency response times would be negatively affected. Weld County emergency responders have indicated that they would avoid 1-25 due to increased response times as described in Section 3.22.1.1. The likely higher number of crashes also could • affect the likelihood of a crash involving a transporter of hazardous waste. 3.22.2.2 PACKAGE A Package A includes safety improvements, structure upgrades, construction of additional general purpose plus auxiliary lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Police Protection and Community Safety Services Components A-H1 and A-H4: Safety Improvements and Structure Upgrades. Police protection services would be required for project security during both the construction and operation phases. During the construction phase, security would be required to minimize or prevent construction site thefts. Control of security at the construction site would be the responsibility of the construction contractor. When a site theft occurs, modest increases in police services would be required for investigation, arrests, citations, report writing, and court appearances. Responding to site thefts is within the existing responsibilities of the affected municipalities listed in the section detailing existing conditions. Responding to construction site theft would represent a minimal impact to the overall police workload and is not envisioned to necessitate an increase in staff to maintain existing levels of service. Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. 1-25 would continue to be patrolled by the Colorado State Patrol. In addition, each county or municipality would have a local law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction on intersecting streets. During the construction • phase, security would be required to minimize or prevent construction site thefts. The construction of general purpose lanes also would potentially result in an increased need for security and municipal law enforcement due to increased traffic. The accident rate is projected to decrease, however. Public Safety and Security 3.22.5 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Components A-T1, A-T2, A-T3, and A-T4: Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus. During the construction phase, security would be required to minimize or prevent construction site thefts. During the operation phase of the commuter rail project, police protection would be required to ensure safety on the trains and at the stations and park and rides. Although an operational authority for the commuter rail has not yet been identified, the creation and maintenance of a transit system that has a consistent level of service, safety, and security would be one of the over-arching goals. For discussion of impacts, it can be assumed that the standards practiced by RTD, the largest transit service provider in the regional study area, would be implemented by the commuter rail operational authority. The commuter rail operational authority would provide uniformed, armed security officers who patrol, by vehicle and on foot, the park and rides, trains, and platforms associated with the commuter rail system. Security would be provided seven days a week during all hours of revenue service. All elements of the commuter rail system would likely be designed generally in accordance with RTD's Comprehensive Safety Certification Program (Interview with Dave Genova, RTD, May, 2006), ensuring that safety issues are addressed and that the level of service is consistent throughout the transit corridor. Security on Commuter Trains. Armed security officers would be provided on vehicles and, at times, off-duty police officers would be utilized. Increased demand for local police protection could be required. The operational authority would likely have surveillance cameras on board commuter trains. As with existing commuter trains, police and firefighters would be permitted and encouraged to ride the system for free if identification were presented to the operator. • Security on Commuter Buses. Armed security officers would likely be provided on vehicles and, at times, off-duty police officers would be utilized. Increased demand for local police protection could be required. As with existing commuter bus services, police and firefighters would be permitted and encouraged to ride the system for free if identification were presented to the operator. Security at Commuter Rail Stations, Commuter Bus Stations, and Park and Rides. Passengers would congregate at station platforms and at the park and rides, providing an increased opportunity for crime. Parked cars also would be potentially exposed to theft and vandalism. Security forces hired by the commuter rail operational authority would be responsible for public security at the stations, in conjunction with cooperation from local law enforcement jurisdictions. The stations would incorporate security design features, such as lighting and in some cases cameras, to deter criminals. Based on historic RTD experience, special security at the park and rides is not anticipated, although cameras would be placed at any identified high crime park and rides. When thefts occur at park and ride facilities, security forces would work with local police to apprehend criminals. When a crime at the stations or a park-n-ride facility occurs, police involvement would be required for investigation, arrest, citation, report writing, and court appearances. The presence of security forces at the stations would not require increased staffing for local police within any of the affected municipalities. • Public Safety and Security 3.22-6 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Components A-H1, A-H2, A-H3, and A-H4: Safety Improvements, General Purpose Lanes, and Structure Upgrades. The impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services as a result of safety improvements, construction of general purpose and auxiliary lanes, and structure upgrades would not be expected to differ substantially from those described for Police Protection and Community Services relating to Component A-H2. Service for the regional study area would continue to be provided by existing local jurisdictions. Safety improvements, construction of general purpose and auxiliary lanes, and structure upgrades would potentially result in an increased need for fire protection and emergency services due to increased roadway traffic. Components A-T1, A-T2, A-T3, and A-T4: Commuter Rail and Commuter Bus. A commuter rail line and commuter bus service would require fire protection services for control of fires in the vehicles and at the stations. It is unlikely that a fire would occur at the stations because of the simple design and nonflammable construction materials. There is the potential for fire in the trash receptacles and because of the concentration of passengers at the commuter train and bus stations, the potential for increased demands for emergency services exists. Because the potential for fire is low, it is not anticipated that the commuter trains or buses would necessitate the hiring of additional fire protection personnel in any of the affected communities in the corridor. While the stations may occasionally require first aid calls, the • potential impact is considered negligible. Pedestrian and Vehicle Safety Components A-H1, A-H2, A-H3, and A-H4: Safety Improvements, General Purpose Lanes, and Structure Upgrades. Highway safety information, relating to crash rates and the geometric deficiencies that affect them, is documented in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. All four transit service providers in the regional study area operate buses, which are subject to highway crashes. Planned construction at the interchange from 1-25 to Johnson's Corner at Exit 254 would provide improved access to the rest area and higher capacity for truck and commercial freight parking in accordance with standards for mandatory rest periods as set by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The addition of pedestrian facilities in certain locations to ensure safe access to and from transit stations would enhance pedestrian safety within the project area. Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. Proposed commuter trains would interact with the roadway network at 90 locations spread along the length of the rail components. Some of these are already grade-separated, others would be grade-separated as part of the project, and the remainder would stay at-grade. To determine design alternatives of rail crossings, two distinct analyses were undertaken: an "exposure factor analysis" and the Federal Railroad Administration's GradeDec.Net analysis, which evaluates benefits and costs of rail investments. • Public Safety and Security 3.22.7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Exposure factors are used to evaluate whether a crossing should be grade-separated. An exposure factor is the product of train volumes and roadway volume. Crossings where the exposure factor is largest are typically candidates for grade separations. Exposure factors were calculated and evaluated for each of the 90 crossings. Crossings are generally clustered in developed areas such as downtown Longmont and downtown Fort Collins. Exposure factors were calculated for existing conditions and project conditions in the year 2035 for the No-Action Alternative and the build packages. Of the 90 crossings evaluated, 12 crossings had exposure factors at or above 1,000,000. Many of the rural crossings in the corridor had exposure factors under 100,000. Every crossing in the corridor received at least lights and gates as a suggested minimum improvement. Each of the crossings with exposure factors over 1,000,000 was further evaluated for grade separation and recommended for improvements. The commuter rail operational authority would be responsible for implementing design plans and coordinating efforts with freight railroad companies to ensure that at-grade crossings would maximize safety to vehicles and pedestrians. Design measures could include grade separation, installation of gates and lights, and installation of 4-quadrant gates with medians. In the base year, a point of analysis that evaluates the regional study area in a year with no planned construction projects, the overall corridor was predicted to have about 2.4 grade crossing accidents per year. With the improvements defined during the exposure factor analysis, the corridor accident prediction rate dropped to 0.7 grade crossing accidents per year. This is a 70 percent reduction in predicted accidents. Assuming a 2035 design year, a corridor-wide benefit/cost analysis was performed. The results indicate an overall benefit/cost ratio of approximately 2.8. This positive benefit/cost ratio indicates that the • recommendations made would increase corridor safety without over-designing it. To help ensure passenger and pedestrian safety, transit stations would likely be designed in accordance with RTD's life-safety standards. Warning signs, tactile strips, signals, and fencing would be provided to protect pedestrians at station locations. Some stations would require pedestrian overpasses or underpasses to get patrons from the park and rides to the station platforms. These overpasses and underpasses would be designed with adequate fencing and lighting to protect patrons as they walk to the stations. Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus. The addition of commuter bus service to the transportation corridor, as well as highway safety related to crash rates and the geometric deficiencies that affect them, is described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. Each of the transit providers in the regional study area operate buses that are subject to highway crashes. Impacts associated with the addition of commuter bus service are described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. Summary of Key Impacts for Package A Key safety and security impacts associated with implementing Package A would occur temporarily during construction and permanently after implementation. Temporary impacts include: ► There is a potential for increased theft during the construction phase. • Public Safety and Security 3.22-8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Permanent changes include: ► There is a potential for modest increases to police services in response to increases in crime. ► An increased security presence would be needed on trains, buses, and at proposed stations and associated existing park and rides. ► A 70 percent reduction in at grade crossing collisions is predicted. 3.22.2.3 PACKAGE B Package B includes safety improvements, construction of tolled express lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of bus rapid transit service. This alternative was described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. Police Protection and Community Safety Services Components B-H1, B-H2, B-H3, B-H4, B-T1, and B-T2 : Safety Improvements, Tolled Express Lanes, and Bus Rapid Transit. Impacts to police protection and community services from implementing Package B components would not differ substantially from those described for Package A. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services • Components B-H1, B-H2, B-H3, B-H4, B-T1, and B-T2 : Safety Improvements, Tolled Express Lanes, and Bus Rapid Transit. Impacts to police protection and community services from implementing Package B components would not differ substantially from those described for Package A. Pedestrian and Vehicle Safety Components B-H1, B-H2, B-H3, B-H4, B-T1, and B-T2 : Safety Improvements, Tolled Express Lanes, and Bus Rapid Transit. The construction of tolled express lanes and the addition of bus rapid transit service to the transportation corridor, as well as highway safety related to crash rates and the geometric deficiencies that affect them, is described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. Each of the transit providers in the regional study area operate buses that are subject to highway crashes. Buses operating in an exclusive facility with only one lane would be safer than buses operating in multiple general purpose lanes. Impacts associated with these bus components are described in Chapter 2 Alternatives and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. Summary of Key Impacts for Package B Key safety and security impacts associated with implementing Package B would occur temporarily during construction and permanently after implementation. A temporary impact includes: ► There would be a potential for increased theft during the construction phase. • Public Safety and Security 3.22-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Permanent changes include: ► There would be a potential for modest increases to police services in response to increases in crime. ► An increased security presence would be needed on buses and at proposed and associated existing park and rides. 3.22.3 Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would include four components: single track commuter rail with occasional passing tracks and maintenance roads from Fort Collins to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line; highway improvements including tolled express lanes in each direction and a general purpose lane in each direction from SH 14 to SH 66; express bus service from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and DIA; and commuter bus service along US 85. This alternative was described in detail in Chapter 2 Alternatives. For the commuter rail and commuter bus components of the Preferred Alternative, impacts to police protection and community services, fire protection and emergency medical services, and pedestrian and vehicle safety would not differ substantially from those described for Package A. For the highway improvements and express bus service components of the Preferred Alternative, impacts to police protection and community services, fire protection and emergency medical services, and pedestrian and vehicle safety would not differ substantially from those described for Package B. • Summary of Key Impacts for the Preferred Alternative Key safety and security impacts associated with implementing the Preferred Alternative would occur temporarily during construction and permanently after implementation. A temporary impact includes: ► There is a potential for increased theft during the construction phase. Permanent changes include: ► There is a potential for modest increases to police services in response to increases in crime. ► An increased security presence would be needed on trains, buses, and at proposed stations and associated existing park and rides. ► A 70 percent reduction in at grade crossing collisions is predicted. 3.22.4 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for temporary impacts during construction include: Potential losses at construction sites will be mitigated through fencing and on-site security provided by contractors. All construction contractors will be responsible for safety at their respective sites and be required to follow all Occupational Safety and Health Administration • (OSHA) requirements applicable to construction site safety. Each contractor's site safety plans will be approved by the appropriate agencies or a construction management consultant, if chosen. The appropriate agencies will provide a site safety officer to monitor site safety. Public Safety and Security 3.22-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Mitigation measures for permanent impacts include: The design of bus stations will incorporate life-safety standards, similar to RTD's Comprehensive Safety Certification Program. To ensure consistency of service across the transit corridor, the commuter rail operating authority will be expected to adhere to these same standards. These include measures such as fencing to protect patrons from the track area; well-designed pedestrian underpasses; lighting as a deterrent to crime and to ensure good visibility in stations and parking areas; and, where walls and elevator shafts are constructed, the use of transparent materials to provide better sight lines and reduce concealment areas for criminals. The commuter rail operational authority will likely use applicable National Fire Protection Association guidelines for life-safety and fixed-guideway transit systems. Local police will be encouraged to use the park and ride lots when they need to fill out paperwork in order to increase their visibility at stations. It also will be helpful for the commuter rail operating authority to work with neighborhoods adjacent to stations and park and rides to establish neighborhood watch programs and encourage regular attendance of police and security personnel at neighborhood meetings. Before project startup, the commuter rail operational authority will host training sessions for all affected police, fire, emergency response teams, schools, and employers who either are responsible for police or emergency response or are located in the immediate project corridor. These training sessions will cover the details of commuter train and bus operations, potential security issues, and agency responsibilities. • Public Safety and Security 3.22-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Public Safety and Security 3.22-12 • N ORTH 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.23 Construction • • Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.23 CONSTRUCTION This section identifies the impacts that are expected during the construction phase of the No-Action Alternative or any of the build what's in Section 3.23? packages and mitigation measures to 3.23 Construction address impacts. Construction activities and 3.23.1 Construction Schedule associated impacts would be similar for the 3.23.2 Environmental Consequences build packages, although in different 3.23.2.1 No-Action Alternative 3.locations. Therefore, impacts are discussed Mitigation Build Packages p 3.23.3 Mitigation Measures generally and not by package, except where 3.23.4 Summary there are notable differences. While other sections of this document address permanent impacts that the packages could have on the environment, this section deals with the potential temporary impacts of construction. Specific construction methods would be addressed during the development of the final construction plans. In general, highway, rail, and supporting facilities construction includes mobilization, utility relocation and adjustments, demolition and site preparation, and lane or track construction (earth work and paving). Construction sequencing strategies are required for a project of this size and would take into account minimization of related impacts. Concerns expressed through the public involvement process regarding construction impacts • focused on noise, visual, and traffic impacts. These concerns are summarized in Chapter 9 Public and Agency Involvement. 3.23.1 Construction Schedule This section identifies and describes various construction impacts associated with the alternatives as well as construction scheduling and phasing. Package A would include highway widening and also double-tracked commuter rail construction mostly along the existing BNSF right-of-way using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown Longmont, construction of a new double-tracked extension from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton, and construction of associated commuter rail stations and a maintenance facility. Also, highway interchange improvements, commuter bus stations and parking and carpool lots would be constructed as part of Package A. Package B would include construction of bus rapid transit (BRT) stations along 1-25, a transit maintenance facility, highway widening including the addition of tolled express lanes (TEL), interchange improvements and parking and carpool lots. The Preferred Alternative would include four components: single track commuter rail with occasional passing tracks and maintenance roads from Fort Collins to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line; highway improvements including tolled express lanes in each direction and a general purpose lane in each direction from SH 14 to SH 66; express bus service from Fort Collins and Greeley to Denver and DIA; and commuter bus service along US 85. The approximate construction schedule for the project under ideal conditions and the possibility of project phasing are described in this section. • Construction 3.23-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIII Approximate Best-Case Construction Schedule The build packages would be built in phases since funding for the entire project is not available. The schedule would take into account various construction activities grouped into the categories of: mobilization , utility relocation, demolition and site preparation , lane construction , and interchange and structure construction . The time required to complete activities for each of these categories as well as the relative timing of the activities during the course of the project has been estimated (see Figure 3.23-1 ). See Chapter 8 Phased Project Implementation for more information on construction phases. Figure 3.23-1 Approximate Best-Case Construction Schedule for All Build Alternatives Activity Mobilization ail Utility Relocation saammil Demolition and Site Preparationall Track / Lane Construction i 0 Interchange, Station { il and Structure Construction a, - - Time in Months 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 3.23.2 Environmental Consequences 3.23.2.1 No-AcTioN ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would involve very little additional construction over what is currently programmed , approved, and funded to support the growing population of the regional study area. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would result in no construction or utility impacts aside from those associated with the programmed projects (see Chapter 2 Alternatives). 3.23.2.2 BUILD PACKAGES Construction of the build packages would create various temporary impacts within the project area. Some of these impacts would be common to all build packages while some are specific to particular components of a package, such as the incorporation of a double-track commuter rail line in Package A. 0 Construction 3.23-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Transportation Construction detours and delays can create short-term impacts on local traffic circulation and congestion and inter- and intra-state travelers using the 1-25 and US 85 corridors for commuting. These impacts may include delays or the need for alternative travel routes to reach residences and community facilities. Emergency service response may be negatively impacted as a result of construction, as well. In the more populated areas, such as the Denver Metro Area, these impacts could cause greater congestion. Delays to the traveling public and inconvenience to corridor residents would occur. A primary goal of CDOT during construction of the project would be to minimize inconvenience to the public through construction traffic planning during final design, and by monitoring and adjusting these plans throughout the construction phase. Construction activities associated with the additional double-track or passing track along the BNSF/North Longmont Metro Connection corridors would impact roadway traffic at rail crossings and possibly train traffic along the existing railway. These impacts, though unavoidable, could be minimized through a variety of techniques. Overall construction impacts to roadway crossings are expected to be minor with employment of mitigation measures listed in Section 3.23.3. Pedestrian and bicycle mobility is important within each of the package corridors. Construction activities could temporarily affect local residents who use these facilities and those who use • these corridors for commuting and recreation. Land Use Construction of the build packages would temporarily affect access to the different land uses within the project area throughout the duration of the project. These impacts would mostly be limited to areas that are in close proximity to large-scale construction activities, generally not greater than 300 feet outside of the work areas. Economic Conditions By implementing any of the build packages, the economic benefit of additional employment within the project area due to construction would be evident. This additional employment includes construction-related jobs that are directly and indirectly related to the project. Jobs created that are directly related would include jobs that pertain to the actual construction activities of the project. Jobs that are indirectly related would include positions that would help support the construction efforts by supplying goods and services to construction workers. Construction of Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would generate 10,800,10,200, and 11,400 jobs, respectively, throughout the length of construction. Restricted access to businesses located adjacent to the rights-of-way during construction could negatively impact the performance of some of the businesses. The severity of this impact would vary depending on the type and health of the business and the length of time of construction. These businesses may see a partial offset by increased retail sales due to the presence of construction workers. • Construction 3.23-3 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Right-of-Way Some additional land would be required in areas adjacent to the existing rights-of-way for construction staging purposes. These staging areas would be used to store equipment and materials and would also be used to provide parking for construction workers. These necessary areas would be purchased or leased, usually as temporary construction easements, before the start of construction. Air Quality Without mitigation, excavation, grading, and fill activities associated with construction could increase local fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust is airborne particulate matter, generally of a relatively large size (greater than 100 microns in diameter). Because of their large size, these soil particles typically settle within 30 feet of their source. Smaller particles could travel as much as hundreds of feet, depending on winds. Construction activity would increase emissions from additional traffic and detouring. Also, construction would require the disturbance of soil, which would produce fugitive dust or particulate pollution. Construction-related activities that may cause soil material to become airborne include the following: ► Digging and dumping of soil and discarded construction materials (asphalt, concrete, etc.) ► Material hauling ► Wind erosion over exposed construction sites • ► Re-entrainment of construction dirt deposited on local streets by vehicular traffic on the streets The amount of airborne dust generated and the airborne concentration of particulate matter that human receptors would be exposed to would depend on a variety of factors and would vary from day-to-day, depending on site and climate conditions. Factors influencing fugitive dust emissions include: ► Soil type ► Area of exposed soil ► Location of construction activities relative to potential receptors ► Volume of dirUmaterial to be moved ► Wind speed and direction ► Soil moisture ► Time of day ► Season of the year • Construction 3.23.4 Final EIS NORTH I25 August2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. The length of time that any particular receptor would be exposed to construction-related dust would be relatively short, lasting only during construction activities. Construction would likely proceed in a linear fashion with site excavation, bed preparation, and track installation beginning at one or more locations and working along the alignment. Construction vehicles and equipment would generate the same exhaust emissions as motor vehicles on area roadways. The emissions contribution of these vehicles would be short-term and minor when compared to usual emission levels from day-to-day traffic in the project area. Additionally, construction equipment would generally be diesel-powered, emitting relatively low levels of carbon monoxide, but higher levels of particulate emissions. Exhaust emissions could temporarily impact sensitive receptors located adjacent to the areas of construction. Noise and Vibration Construction noise would present the potential for short-term impacts to receptors located along the existing rights-of-way and along the designated construction access routes. The primary source of construction noise is expected to be diesel-powered equipment, such as trucks, earth-moving machinery, and demolition equipment. Demolition and pile driving could be the loudest construction operations. Demolition of structures, such as existing bridges, is generally conducted at night because of safety issues • requiring full or partial closure of the highway and local streets. Piles could be required at most major bridge installations and could have both noise and vibration impacts. Alternative construction methods, such as the use of caissons or pre-drilling for piling, could replace pile driving in noise-sensitive locations. The majority of noise receptors are located greater than 50 feet from areas where pile driving or other high-noise activities are expected. Increased noise impacts are expected to occur only in areas near residential developments that are in the vicinity of interchanges requiring demolition and replacement or major renovation. These impacts would occur primarily in the Windsor area and the north Fort Collins area along 1-25. Vibration caused by construction activities would present the potential for short-term impacts in areas where pile driving and compaction equipment are being used. The potential for building damage from pile-driving vibration is estimated to exist only within about 50 feet of the activity. Vibration from compaction equipment is less severe because it does not propagate through the lower soil layers like pile driving does. Construction activities in close proximity to buildings (i.e., within 50 feet) must be sensitive to vibration damage potential. Extra care would be necessary when in close proximity to buildings. Details would be developed during subsequent design efforts. Table 3.23-1 shows typical noise emission levels of construction equipment that could be used for any build package at 50 feet. The impact levels from construction noise would depend on the sensitivity of the noise receptor, the magnitude of noise during each construction phase, the duration of the noise, the time of day the noise occurs, and the distance from the construction activities. A detailed description of noise level measurements (dBA) can be found in Section 3.6 Noise • and Vibration. Construction 3.23-5 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.23-1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels at 50 Feet Typical Noise Typical Noise Equipment Type Levels at 50 feet Equipment Type Levels at 50 feet (dBA)from Source (dBA)from Source Air Compressor 81 Pile-driver(Impact) 101 Backhoe 80 Pile-driver(Sonic) 96 Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85 Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 76 Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90 Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 98 Concrete Pump 82 Roller 74 Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76 Crane, Derrick 88 Scarifier 83 Crane, Mobile 83 Scraper 89 Dozer 85 Shovel 82 Generator 81 Spike Driver 77 Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84 Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80 Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85 Loader 85 Truck 88 • Paver 89 The potential for construction noise impacts would vary by location and land use. It is likely that noise impacts would occur in residential areas within 50 feet of the railroad alignment as a result of construction of the commuter rail system. These impacts would be intermittent and temporary. Potential noise impacts to commercial or industrial areas could occur within 50 feet of the rail alignment from construction activities in areas where pile-driving activity would take place. Construction vibration impacts would result from the use of construction equipment such as a pile driver, a bulldozer, or a jack hammer. The vibration would be generally intermittent and temporary, and therefore, would not result in an appreciable impact to receivers along the alignment with the exception of properties in close proximity to construction activities. Table 3.23-3 identifies vibration source levels for construction equipment at 25 feet. Detailed information on vibration measurements (vdB) can be found in Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration. • Construction 3.23-6 Final EIS NORTH I25 August2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.23-2 Vibration Source Levels For Construction (From Measured Data) Equipment PPV at 25 Feet Approximate VdB at 25 (in/sec) Feet Pile driver(impact) 1.518 112 Pile driver(sonic) 0.734 105 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94 Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008 66 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 PPV.... Peak Particle Velocity VdB....vibration decibels Source: FTA, 2006c. Ecosystems Wildlife habitats adjacent to the railway or roadway improvements would be impacted during construction. Some wildlife would be driven away during construction activities due to the • increased noise and activity. These impacts would be primarily limited to the undeveloped areas of the project area. Farmlands Farmlands adjacent to the alignments would be impacted if construction activities are required to extend beyond the right-of-way or if access must be modified. Also, dust generated from construction activities could settle on agricultural lands, possibly temporarily altering soil composition. The impacted farmland areas are scattered throughout the project area where land is undeveloped or primarily rural. Cultural Resources Construction could damage or remove archaeological or paleontological resources that have become buried beneath the soil surface, as discussed in Section 3.15 Historic Presentation and Section 3.16 Paleontological Resources. The amount of damage would vary, depending upon soil strata, type, and condition, materials, and type of structure. Construction could have both short-and long-term impacts on cultural landscapes by introducing intrusive elements into the landscape, or by removing character-defining elements of that landscape, such as large trees, irrigation features, or open spaces. Parks and Recreational Resources Parks located adjacent to construction activity could experience temporary impacts during construction. Detailed information on each of the parks and recreation areas can be found in • Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation. Impacts to these areas could include construction noise, dust, visual degradation, and increased traffic congestion inhibiting access to the park and recreation areas. Construction 3.23.7 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • Visual Setting Short-term construction-related visual impacts would likely occur as a result of the proposed build packages. These impacts would include the presence of construction equipment and material storage, temporary barriers, guardrail, detour pavement and signs, temporary shoring and retaining walls, lighting for night construction, and removal of existing vegetative cover in the construction zone. Residential areas near construction activities could experience visual impacts resulting from construction activities. It is assumed that the construction of any build package would be conducted in phases so the entire corridor would not be undergoing construction at one time. The greatest visual impacts during construction would be associated with construction lay-down yards (staging areas), construction traffic/equipment along 1-25 and the rail line, clearing/demolition of the bridge structures, safety barriers, and signage and flag-persons. The impacts would be visible both to residents along the 1-25 corridor and the rail line as well as travelers on the roadway network within the project area. Floodplains and Water Resources During construction, stormwater runoff could present the potential for violations of water quality standards if discharge occurs without the application of best management practices. Without mitigation measures, stormwater runoff could cause erosion and sedimentation and transport spilled fuels or other hazardous materials off the construction site. The build packages cross several drainage basins. Groundwater could be encountered during relocation of deep utilities, excavation, and construction of tunnels and below-grade roadways. Dewatering and treatment • could be required where groundwater is present. The build packages would cause an increased risk to surface water quality due to proximity of construction to tributaries of the South Platte River. These tributaries include the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek. Final design would include runoff prevention measures to minimize the amount of sediment reaching surface water bodies as a result of rail or road construction. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.-Section 404 Temporary impacts to wetlands could occur within the drainages of St. Vrain Creek, Little Thompson River, Big Thompson River, and Cache la Poudre River. These impacts would primarily be from construction equipment adjacent to wetland areas. Wetlands would be restored to the extent possible if damage from the equipment occurs (see Section 3.8 Wetlands). Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials could be encountered during construction in several ways. The movement of earth, particularly excavation, could uncover sites with hazardous chemicals or petroleum products. Former or current gas stations can frequently contain petroleum contamination that could be encountered during construction. • Construction 3.23.8 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. During construction, it is expected that there would be excavation and drilling for caissons to support underpasses, overpasses, and bridge development. Any of these activities could cause an impact to soils or groundwater containing hazardous waste and, possibly, a potential impact to human health and safety. Prior to construction and right-of-way acquisition, soil sampling would be performed to determine the nature and extent of contamination at sites with recognized environmental conditions. The results of this sampling would be incorporated into a health and safety plan that would be implemented during construction to minimize the potential exposure of workers to contaminants and hazards. StormWater Management Plans would be developed to minimize runoff and impacts to uncontaminated soils. Contaminated materials would be disposed according to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requirements. Utilities Construction associated with the build packages would require excavation, grading, boring and other activities that would have short-term effects on utilities. This would include crossing existing lines, relocation, modification, and usage of temporary easements. The process of relocating these utilities could cause temporary planned or accidental disruptions in service to local residents in the project area. CDOT would coordinate with the entities responsible for utility relocations and replacements • required by the build packages. Mitigation would include meeting and consulting with the municipalities and utility representatives during the final design and construction phases to coordinate planning and construction activities. CDOT's goal is to minimize and, to the extent possible, avoid interruptions in service to corridor residents and businesses. Energy The build packages would require substantial one-time energy expenditures related to the manufacture of construction materials, transporting of materials to the site, and construction of new facilities. Construction energy consumption is based on the number of lane-miles and track-miles proposed for each construction type; at-grade and on elevated structure. The build packages require energy to construct additional lanes, double- or single-track commuter rail, stations, and maintenance facilities. The energy consumption estimated for construction of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative is approximately 6.8 trillion, 9.0 trillion, and 10.3 trillion British thermal units (BTUs), respectively (see Table 3.23-4). • Construction 3.23-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.23-3 Energy Consumption for Construction Lane Miles/ BTUs per BTUs Alternative Type of Construction Track Miles Lane Mile Consumed (in millions) (in millions) Surface Road/Railway 445.9 13,885 6,191,322 Package A Elevated Road/Railway 12.0 130,739 1,568,868 Total Construction 457.9 N/A 7,760,190 Surface Roadway 525.6 13,885 7,297,956 Package B Elevated Roadway 11.9 130,739 1,555,794 Total Construction 537.5 N/A 8,853,750 Surface Roadway/Railway 606.0 13,885 8,414,310 Preferred Elevated Roadway/Railway 13.5 130,739 1,764,977 Alternative Total Construction 619.5 N/A 10,179,287 Source: FTA, 2006c. 3.23.3 Mitigation Measures CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005c) and CDOT's Construction Manual(2002a) outline basic mitigation measures that contractors are required to take on any construction project. Appropriate application of these mitigation strategies would • be defined during the final engineering phase of this project. See Table 3.23-4 for a summary of construction-related mitigation strategies. • Construction 3.23-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • in cooperation. transportation. Table 3.234 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies Impact Most Likely Recommended Mitigation Strategies Impacted Noise Local ► Use enhanced signing. residents ► Implement construction best management practices. Local ► Use noise blankets on equipment and quiet-use generators. businesses ► Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. ► Use alternative construction methods, such as sonic or vibratory pile-driving in sensitive areas, when possible. ► In residential areas, construction activities will be minimized during the evening, nighttime, weekends, and holidays when receptors are usually in these areas. ► Nighttime construction will be desirable (e.g., commercial areas where businesses may be disrupted during daytime hours)or necessary to avoid major traffic disruption. ► The major noise source on construction sites is typically diesel motors;therefore, all engines will use commercially available effective mufflers and enclosures, as possible. ► Modern equipment will be used with improved noise muffling and all equipment items will be evaluated to ensure that they have the manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measure, such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine • vibration isolators intact and operational. Generally, newer equipment creates less operational noise than older equipment. All construction equipment will be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise-control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding). ► The use of impact pile driving will be avoided near noise- sensitive areas, where possible. Alternative foundation preparation technologies will be used, such as vibratory pile driving or cast in drilled hole. ► Temporary barriers will be used and relocated, as required, to protect sensitive receptors from excessive construction noise. Noise barriers should be made of heavy plywood or moveable insulated sound blankets. ► Plans will be made to conduct truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so that noise will be kept to a minimum. This will be achieved by carefully selecting routes to avoid going through residential neighborhoods to the greatest possible extent. ► Good public relations will be maintained with the community to minimize objections to unavoidable construction noise. Frequent updates of all construction activities will be provided to the public. This program should keep residents informed so they may plan around periods of particularly high noise levels and should provide a conduit for residents to express any concerns or complaints about noise. • Construction 3.23-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.234 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies (contd) Impact Most Likely Recommended Mitigation Strategies Impacted 9 9 Access Local ► Use enhanced signing. residents ► Use alternate access enhancements. Local ► Use advertising/public relations. businesses Travelers ► Do not close multiple interchanges concurrently. Highway Local ► Limit detours. t• Traffic residents ► Place detours on major arterial streets and ensure no local detours Local street detours are implemented. ► Lane businesses ► Schedule construction during periods of least traffic. closures Travelers ► Use geometric enhancements including wider lanes and ► Congestion better visibility. ► Construction ► Limit construction vehicles to major arterials. vehicles on ► Enforce speed restrictions; provide adequate space for local streets enforcement; make prime contractor accountable. ► Safety of lane ► Use courtesy patrol. shifts ► Use enhanced signing. ► Phase construction to limit traffic in neighborhoods. ► Comply with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO)guidance and Manual on • Uniform Traffic Control Devices. ► Coordinate work activities to ensure they do not coincide with sporting, school, or special events. ► Implement advanced traffic diversion. ► Use intelligent management systems and variable message signs to advise/redirect traffic. ► Work with Regional Transportation District(RTD)to offer enhanced operations during peak construction. ► Develop traffic management plans. ► Maintain access to local businesses/residents. ► Coordinate with emergency service providers to minimize delay and ensure access to properties. Pedestrian/ Local ► Provide well-defined detours for pedestrians/bicyclists. Bicycle residents ► Enhance safety through the use of adequate signing, fencing, mobility Commuters and lighting. Bicyclists ► Implement a public relations program. ► Comply with American Disability Act requirements. ► Construct new bike/pedestrian overpass as a detour before old is demolished. • Construction 3.23-12 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.23 4 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies (cont'd) Impact Most Likely Recommended Mitigation Strategies Impacted Environmental Construction ► Use wetting/chemical inhibitors for dust control. Impacts workers ► Provide early investigation of subsurface conditions. ► Dust/air Downstream ► Prepare a well-defined materials handling plan. quality water users ► ► Employ educated contractor with trained personnel. Hazardous Local waste residents ► Require prompt and safe disposal of waste products. ► Water quality Local ► Implement water quality best management practices. businesses ► Prepare well-defined stormwater management plan. ► Resource use/ recycling ► Conduct monitoring. material ► Institute resource reuse and allocation. ► Ensure regulatory compliance. ► Cover trucks hauling soil and other materials. ► Stabilize and cover stockpile areas. ► Minimize offsite tracking of mud, debris, hazardous material, and noxious weeds by washing construction equipment in contained areas. ► Avoid impacts to wetlands or other areas of important habitat value in addition to those impacted by the project itself. • D. Control and prevent concrete washout and construction wastewater. As projects are designed, ensure that proper specifications are adhered to and reviewed to ensure adequacy in the prevention of water pollution by concrete washout. ► Store equipment and materials in designated areas only. ► Promptly remove any unused detour pavement or signs. ► Follow CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005), including sections regarding water quality control, erosion control, and environmental health and safety. ► As soon as practicable after construction activities have been completed in a disturbed area, begin permanent stabilization to limit further erosion of soil. ► Remove soil and other materials from paved streets. ► Incorporate recommendations as appropriate from the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) report, Reducing Diesel Emissions in the Denver Area (RAQC, 2002). ► Operate equipment mainly during off-peak hours. ► Limit equipment idling time. ► Use recycled materials for project activities to the extent allowed by good practice and CDOT construction specifications. ► Use construction equipment that use ultra-low sulfur fuels to the extent practicable. • Construction 3.23-13 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.234 Summary of Construction-Related Mitigation Strategies (cont'd) Impact Most Likely p Impacted Recommended Mitigation Strategies Floodplains ► To mitigate potential water quality problems from construction, and Water best management practices will be implemented as part of the Resources stormwater management plan to abate and control suspended soil loading from erosion. Best management practices used will be consistent with the MS4 permitting requirements, requirements of Northern Front Range flood control districts, as well as practices mentioned in CDOT's Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide (CDOT, 2002b). This will include such measures as silt fences and detention ponds. Rip-rap slope protection will be utilized where necessary to prevent erosion. Any impacts to surface water quality as a result of construction will be temporary. Mitigation measures for contaminated groundwater potentially encountered during construction are discussed in Section 3.7 Water Resources. Section 107.25 of CDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (2005)deals with contractor's requirements for water quality control. Source: CDOT, Construction Manual, 2002;CDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2005. 3.23.4 Summary Package A would have the greatest construction impacts (noise, air quality, and transportation) • to residential areas because the construction of the double-track commuter rail would extend through residential areas. In contrast, construction of Package B primarily would involve the widening and addition of lanes along a corridor that consists primarily of commercial, industrial, and agricultural development. The Preferred Alternative would include single track commuter rail with occasional passing tracks and maintenance roads from Fort Collins to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line, in addition to improvements on 1-25, express bus and commuter bus service. Construction of the build packages would cause varying temporary impacts to traffic patterns and congestion, noise and vibration, air quality, and visual presence. These impacts would be short-term and isolated in extent depending upon the types and location of construction. Through the planning and implementation of mitigation measures during final design of the Preferred Alternative, these impacts would be minimized. • Construction 3.23-14 • N ORTH 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.24 Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity • • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.24 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY Implementation of any of the build alternatives would involve short-term uses What's in Section 3.24? of the environment as a means to achieve 3.24 Relationship Between Local Short-Term long-term productivity gains and benefits for Uses of the Environment and the the regional study area. The uses of the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long- environment and the specific long-term Term Productivity 3.24.1 No-Action Alternative benefits vary between the No-Action 3.24.2 Package A, Package B, and Alternative and the build alternatives. Preferred Alternative 3.24.1 No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would result in minimal anticipated short-term use of the environment because no major transportation improvements associated with this project would be made to the regional study area. The No-Action Alternative would provide no long-term productivity improvements because current deficiencies, as described in Chapter 1 Purpose • and Need, would continue. In fact, long-term productivity would be expected to decrease because increased traffic would place greater demand and stress on unimproved roads. While the No-Action Alternative would provide the least amount of short-term uses of the environment, it also would impact long-term productivity the most. 3.24.2 Package A, Package B, and Preferred Alternative Because the components proposed under Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would result in similar short-term uses and long-term benefits, they are discussed together in this section. Short-term uses of the environment under any build alternative would include: ► Loss of soil through erosion and fugitive dust ► Temporary disruption of traffic and businesses in the proposed construction areas ► Temporary visual impacts during construction ► Temporary noise and vibration impacts ► Temporary use of land for construction staging and storage of materials • Relationship Between Local Short-Tenn Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 3.24-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Any of the build packages would provide similar long-term transportation benefits. Long-term benefits under Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative would include: ► Improving travel safety within the regional study area ► Increasing the efficiency of movement within large and critical transportation corridors ► Decreasing the overall travel times throughout the corridor ► Improving product and material distribution ► Improving access to businesses within the travel corridor ► Improving emergency vehicle access ► Modernizing existing transportation infrastructure to accommodate future demands ► Creating more environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing transportation corridors ► Improving air quality within the corridors by reducing traffic congestion The build alternatives have some key differences that could alter the way they use resources in the short term and enhance productivity in the long term. Over the long term, Package A and the Preferred Alternative would tend to reinforce development and add density in the core cities along the corridor which could help alleviate development pressure along 1-25 and therefore result in less impact to wildlife habitat and farmlands along 1-25. This likely pattern of development would also enhance commercial productivity in the cities where it is more likely to be sustainable over the long term. Similarly, with both general purpose lanes and TELs, the Preferred Alternative would increase the capacity for freight transport and distribution resulting • in increased commercial productivity. Package B and the 1-25 improvements included in the Preferred Alternative would influence development and add density to cities along the 1-25 corridor. • Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 3.24-2 • NORTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources • • Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.25 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Implementation of any of the build alternatives would involve a commitment of what's in Section 3.25? a wide range of natural, physical, biological, 3.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of human, and fiscal resources. The Resources commitment of these resources would be based on the concept that residents in the regional study area and the State of Colorado would benefit from the improved quality of the transportation corridors. Benefits would include improvements to safety and accessibility, an increase in travel efficiency, and increased availability of services. The benefits of the build packages are anticipated to outweigh the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Land that would be used in the construction of transportation improvements associated with any of the build alternatives would be considered an irreversible commitment of resources, since it is unlikely that this land would ever be converted to another use. The removal of vegetation for construction of additional highway lanes or railway lines would result in an irretrievable loss of vegetation from the regional study area, however much of this would be considered shortgrass and is mitigated within the CDOT shortgrass prairie initiative. The shortgrass prairie initiative is a proactive conservation/mitigation measure developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nature Conservancy, FHWA, and CDOT. As part of the • initiative, CDOT directs funds to purchase priority habitat conservation sites to offset habitat loss caused by future transportation improvements. Wetlands within the alignments of the build alternatives may be removed or degraded by construction and roadway activities, and though regulations and policy regarding wetlands compensation are designed to ensure no net-loss of wetlands, the original wetlands would be considered an irretrievable loss. Direct removal or major alteration of historic structures and substantial encroachment upon historic properties required for construction of the transportation improvements would be considered an irreversible loss of historic resources. Package A would require the acquisition and removal of three historic buildings, and an additional two linear historic properties (one irrigation ditch and one railroad) would be subjected to substantial direct impacts. Package B would not result in the taking of any historic structures; however, one historic irrigation ditch would be subjected to substantial direct impacts. The Preferred Alternative would result in the loss of one historic structure. Additionally, the same two linear resources directly impacted by Package A would be subject to relatively similar impacts under the Preferred Alternative. Parks and recreation areas would be impacted by all build packages resulting in irretrievable losses of these areas in their present state. However, these impacts can be mitigated by acquisition of land and replacement of the recreation features. An approximate total of 17.33 acres would be impacted by Package A, while 14.54 acres would be impacted by Package B. The Preferred Alternative would impact 15.66 acres of park and recreation areas. Fossil fuels would be irretrievably expended in several ways under the build packages. Fossil • fuels would be consumed during the construction of transportation improvements during grading, material movement (e.g., hauling aggregate for concrete), and other activities. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3.25-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Construction materials, such as aggregate for concrete and petroleum products used in asphalt and in the operation of construction equipment, would not be retrievable. Irreversible use of resources may occur at gravel mining sites that are used by contractors. In addition, considerable labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These irretrievable losses are in exchange for the benefits provided by the build alternatives. 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. For more information on phasing, see Chapter 8 Phased Project Implementation. CDOT is committed to the concept of sustainability in order to preserve, to the extent possible, vital natural resources in the State of Colorado. Specifically, a Sustainability Subcommittee within the Transportation Environmental Resource Council (including CDOT and FHWA) was created to discuss sustainability guidelines. Sustainability is defined as the wise use of our planet's resources such that the quality of life for future generations will not be compromised. • CDOT has initiated a program that stresses sustainability concepts to its contractors. Contractor requirements identified in CDOT's construction specifications include recycling of pavement and steel reinforcement materials, and the use of environmentally sound materials. CDOT also encourages innovative approaches to construction and highway operations, such as the use of solar power systems for lighting and traffic signals, the use of recycled materials as asphalt compounds, and water and stormwater management systems that incorporate concepts to protect and conserve water resources. Additionally, the Sustainability Policy published by the Colorado Governor's Energy Office in July 2008 provides examples on energy efficiency and conservation of resources. Fiscal resources, such as state and federal funds required for the implementation of the build packages, would be consumed and unavailable for other projects in the region. However, the funds invested would benefit the travelers of the roadway and transit facilities and the communities relying on the roadway and transit facilities for connectivity to other communities. • Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 3.25-2 • N o r ' I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.26 Cumulative Impacts • 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.26 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations What's in Section 3.26? require federal agencies to identify and analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative 3.26 Cumulative Impacts 3.26.1 Methodology impacts of a proposed federal action in 3.26.1.1 Scoping and Agency sufficient detail to make an informed Coordination decision. A federal agency's responsibility 3.26.1.2 Geographic Areas of Analysis to address these impacts in the NEPA 3.26.1.3 Time Frame for Analysis process was established by the Council on 3.26.1.4 Reasonably Foreseeable Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Future Projects The CEQ regulations define a cumulative 3.26.2 Affected Environment impact as: 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences 3.26.3.1 Land Use 3.26.3.2 Water Quality "...the impact on the environment which 3.26.3.3 Wildlife results from the incremental impact of an 3.26.3.4 Wetlands action when added to other past, present, 3.26.3.5 Air Quality and reasonably foreseeable future actions 3.26.3.6 Historic Properties and regardless of what agency(federal or non- Districts federal) or person undertakes such other 3.26.4 Conclusion actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." • - 40 §CFR 1508.7 Direct and indirect impacts were discussed by resource in the preceding sections. This section addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the No-Action Alternative and the three build alternatives. The analysis of cumulative impacts takes into account past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of responsible party in the regional study area, to determine the environmental impacts that might result from each alternative. In accordance with CEQ guidance, analysis was performed using available or reasonably obtainable information. 3.26.1 Methodology As part of the North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) process, a methodology was developed for the analysis of cumulative impacts that included the following steps: ► Identify the resources to be analyzed for cumulative impacts through the public and agency scoping process ► Establish appropriate geographic boundaries for the analysis ► Establish an appropriate time frame for the analysis ► Identify other actions affecting the resources of concern including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions • ► Document impacts to resources from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative impacts Cumulative Impacts 3.26-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 3.26.1.1 SCOPING AND AGENCY COORDINATION Cumulative impact analysis is resource-specific and is generally performed for environmental resources directly impacted by a federal action and/or identified through scoping as being key resources of concern. Agency scoping meetings were held in February 2004 and May 2006. At these meetings, project needs and potential and cumulative impacts were considered. The following agencies were invited to attend these meetings and/or submit comments in writing: ► Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) ► Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) ► Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) ► Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) ► United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ► Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ► North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) ► Regional Transportation District (RTD) ► State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) ► United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) ► United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • ► Upper Front Range Regional Planning Commission (UFRRPC) Agency scoping and coordination identified six resources of concern to be evaluated for cumulative impacts. All social, economic, and environmental resources were considered before identifying the important issues within the regional study area. The identified areas of particular concern within the regional study area are: ► Land use (growth) ► Water quality ► Wildlife ► Wetlands ► Air quality ► Historic properties and districts 3.26.1.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF ANALYSIS The geographic resource boundary to be used for the cumulative impacts analysis is based on the resources of concern and the potential impacts to these resources under a build package. For most resources, this boundary consists of the regional study area for the North 1-25 project. East-west boundaries extend from US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) rail line to approximately three miles west of US 287 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line. North-south boundaries extend from Wellington to US 6 in Denver. The regional study • area spans portions of seven counties and includes more than 38 incorporated cities and towns. Cumulative Impacts 3.26.2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.26.1.3 TIME FRAME FOR ANALYSIS The time frame for the analysis of cumulative impacts should allow the analysis to recognize long-term trends while remaining focused. Time frames are typically based upon the availability of data or a meaningful event that has influenced existing conditions (construction of a highway or railroad, for example). The time frame established for this cumulative impacts analysis extends from 1950 to 2035. These dates were based upon the availability of aerial photography (1950) and the project horizon (2035). 3.26.1.4 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS Current and reasonably foreseeable actions within the regional study area include development, transportation, and infrastructure projects that are expected to occur regardless of the improvements that are being evaluated in this Final EIS. These projects, listed in Table 3.26-1, Table 3.26-2, and Table 3.26-3, include those that are under construction or have been approved, as well as proposed developments that are known by planners or developers to be reasonably certain but which may not have been approved or permitted as of March 2007. Minor projects including improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, municipal intersections, and bridges are not included in these tables. Developments were compiled from the DRCOG 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan (MVRTP), the North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, the 2008-2013 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and development plans, transportation • plans, and capital improvement programs from regional study area jurisdictions. Due to the size of the regional study area and the number of cities and towns it contains, data collection was based on readily available data and was limited to those communities with populations greater than 15,000. Only two percent of Arvada is located within the regional study area, and no ongoing or planned developments in Arvada fall within regional study area boundaries. Table 3.26-1 Transportation Projects within the Regional Study Area Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project I-70/SH 58 and Ward Road -- Construct new ramps New ramps at interchange (south ramps) Interchanges West Corridor, Central Corridor New light rail, stations, park- Light rail, stations, and park- to Jefferson County Center RTD n-Rides n-Rides. Gold Line, Denver Union RTD New light rail, stations, New light rail, stations, Station to Ward Road parking parking North Metro Corridor, Denver RTD New rail, stations, parking New rail, stations, parking Union Station to 160th Northwest Rail, Denver Union RTD New rail, stations, parking New rail, stations, parking Station to Longmont US 36 BRT, Denver Union RTD New slip ramps, access New ramps, access Station to Table Mesa improvements, park-n-Rides improvements, park-n-Rides Central Corridor; 30th and • Downing to 40th and 40th RTD New light rail and stations New light rail and stations Extension Cumulative Impacts 3.26-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Table 3.26-1 Transportation Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project East Corridor, Denver Union RID New rail, stations, and New rail, stations,and Station to DIA park-n-Rides park-n-Rides Denver Union Station RTD Intermodal Center Intermodal Center 120th Avenue Connection over CDOT Build new six-lane road Build new six-lane road US 36 I-25 from SH 52 to SH 66 -- Widen roadway to six lanes Widening SH 121/Wadsworth Boulevard from 36th Avenue to -- Widen roadway to six lanes Widening SH 128/120th Avenue SH 121/Wadsworth Parkway from 92nd Avenue to -- Widen roadway to six lanes Widening SH 128/120th Avenue 104th Avenue from -- Widen roadway to four lanes Widening Colorado Boulevard to US 85 1-70 Viaduct(East Corridor): Roadway reconstruction and Roadway reconstruction and Brighton Boulevard to CDOT interchange interchanges York Street 1-70 East from 1-270 to __ Widen roadway to eight Havana Street lanes Widening 1-25 from US 36 to •Widen roadway to eight -- Thornton Parkway lanes Widening 1-270 from Vasquez to -- Widen roadway to six lanes Widening Quebec Street US 36 at -- Interchange reconstruction Interchange reconstruction Wadsworth Boulevard US 36 from SH 157 to 1-25 -- Add HOT lanes Add HOT lanes E-470 Widen roadway to eight/six E-470 from 1-25 to 1-25 Public lanes; build five new Widening and new Highway interchanges interchanges Authority Jefferson Jefferson Parkway Parkway from SH 93 to SH 128 Public New four-lane tollroad New tollroad Highway Authority US 287: Harmony Road to Carpenter Ft. Collins Widen 4 to 6 lanes Capacity widening Road. US 287: Loveland Widen 4 to 6 lanes Capacity widening 29th Street to 71st Street US 34: Loveland Widen 4 to 6 lanes Capacity widening Denver Avenue to 1-25 US 34: 1-25 to LCR 3 Loveland Widen 4 to 6 lanes Capacity widening Timberline Road:Vine Drive to Ft. Collins Widen 4 to 6 lanes Capacity • Harmony Road P tY widening Cumulative Impacts 3.26-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 3.26.1 Transportation Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project LCR 17: Larimer Loveland city limits to Ft. County Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening Collins City Limits LCR 17: Larimer Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening LCR 34 to Scenic Drive County LCR 17: Larimer US 287 Bypass to Loveland County Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening city limits Boyd Lake Avenue: Loveland Widen 2 to 4 lanes plus new Capacity widening SH 402 to LCR 20E segment Taft Avenue: Loveland Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 50th Street to 71st Street LCR 19: Larimer Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening LCR 28 to Ft.Collins city limits County O Street: Greeley Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 35th Avenue to 59th Avenue LCR 18: Larimer Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 1-25 to County Line Road County 1-25 at LCR 16 Johnstown Reconstruct interchange, Interchange reconstruction • Boyd Lake Avenue: Loveland Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 37th Street to 71st Street SH 14: 1-25 to Riverside Ft. Collins Widen 4 to 6 lanes Capacity widening Prospect Road: Ft. Collins Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 1-25 to Poudre River 83rd Avenue: Greeley Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 10th Street to US 34 Bypass Harmony Road: 1-25 to US 287 Ft. Collins Widen 4 to 6 lanes Capacity widening SH 392: CDOT Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 1-25 to 16th Street in Windsor 59th/65th Avenue: Greeley Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 20th Street to US 34 Bypass 59th Avenue: Greeley Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening C Street to 4th Street US 34 Bypass to 37th Street Greeley Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening SH 60: 1-25 to CR 15 Johnstown Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening SH 60: CDOT Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening US 85 to Two Rivers Parkway Carpenter Road: Ft. Collins Widen 2 to 4 lanes Capacity widening 1-25 to US 287 =Jurisdiction not specified. Cumulative Impacts 3.26.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. III Table 3.26-2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Boulder Mixed use development: Concept plan review Violet Crossing:4474 78 residential units and North Broadway Street 9,400 sq. ft. of commercial, retail, and office Forest Glen: 3945 Boulder Residential development: Preliminary plat North Broadway 13 units at 4,000 sq. ft. Boulder County Hazmat Boulder Construction of 7,661 sq.ft. Site plan review Facility: 1901 63rd Street hazardous waste facility 1655 Walnut Street Boulder Mixed use development: Site plan review 32 residential units Table Mesa housing: Boulder Redevelopment of Army Site plan review 4640 Table Mesa Drive Reserve to 40 units of mixed residential and green space Landmark Lofts: Boulder Mixed use development: Concept plan 970 28th Street Frontage 130 condos/2,000 sq.ft. of retail Brighton Crossing Brighton Residential development: Under construction 1,782 units Brighton East Farms Brighton Residential development: Under construction 1,226 units Bromley Farms Brighton Residential development: Under construction 475 units III Bromley Park Brighton Residential development: Under construction 102 units Cherry Meadows Brighton Residential development: Approved 174 units Homestead Brighton Residential development: Approved 132 units Indigo Trails Brighton Residential development: Approved 369 units Park Place Brighton Residential development: Under construction 80 units Pheasant Ridge Brighton Residential development: Under construction 405 units Preserve Brighton Residential development: Under construction 246 units Sugar Creek Brighton Residential development: Under construction 278 units The Village Brighton Residential development: Under construction 361 units Sunflower Meadows Brighton Residential development: Under construction 180 multi-family units Park 36 Broomfield Urban Broomfield Mixed use development: Planning stages Transit Village: Northwestern 805 apartment units/1.7 corner of Sheridan Boulevard million sq.ft. of commercial; and SH 7 Big box development; park-and-Ride • Pepsi Center: Speer Denver Parking and office Planning stages Boulevard/Auraria Parkway development Cumulative Impacts 3.26.6 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information, cooperation. transportation. Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Department of Human Denver Facilities expansion Planning stages Services: West 12th Avenue/Federal Boulevard East West Partners Denver Mixed use development: Planning stages Development 3,000 residential units Pepsi Center: Speer Denver Parking and office Planning stages Boulevard/Auraria Parkway development Department of Human Denver Facilities expansion Planning stages Services: West 12th Avenue/Federal Boulevard Ashcroft Park Subdivision: Evans Residential development: Under construction North of 37th Street and west 79 single-family lots of 35th Street Borchert Point Subdivision: Evans Residential development: Annexation approved Southwestern corner of 13.3 acres 23rd Avenue and 37th Street Cave Creek Community: Evans Residential development: Under construction 36th Avenue and Prairie View 449 manufactured home sites • The Grove/Campus Crest: Evans Residential development: Permitted Southeastern corner of high density residential— 32nd Street and 11th Avenue 192 units in 10 buildings IGO Farm: Southwestern Evans Development of 257 acres Annexation and zoning corner of 37th Street and of residentially zoned land approved 65th Avenue and 17 acres of commercially zoned land Neville's Crossing: Evans Residential development: Under construction Northwestern corner of 82 large lot single-family 49th Street and 47th Avenue units North Pointe Subdivision: Evans Construction of Under construction Northwestern corner of 225 single-family dwellings 29th Avenue and 37th Street and 26 duplexes Orchard Park Townhomes: Evans Construction of Under construction 65th Avenue and Chardonnay 17 multi-family dwellings Street Parker Meadows: Evans Residential development: Under construction Northwestern corner of 10 duplexes on 3 acres 17th Avenue and 42nd Street Parker Meadows: Evans Residential development: Under construction Northwestern corner of 10 duplexes on 3 acres 17th Avenue and 42nd Street Rehmer Lake: Evans Residential development: Final plat approved Southeastern corner of 306 lots 49th Street and 65th Avenue Ridge at Prairie View: South of Evans Residential development: Under construction • 42nd Street between 357 lots 23rd Avenue and 29th Avenue Cumulative Impacts 3.26.7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Tuscany Development: Evans Residential development: Under construction 37th Street and 47th Avenue 303 single-family lots, 22 duplexes, and 339 multi-family units Vintage Villas: Evans Residential development: Under construction Barrossa and Chardonnay 52 patio homes Prospect Road Expanded Fort Collins Mixed use development: Project development plan Condo: 800, 808, and 61 condos and 148 sq. ft. of approved 814 West Prospect Road commercial Arcadia: south side of West Fort Collins Residential development: Project development plan Willox Lane at Woon Lane 58 single-family units on approved 28.8 acres Bella Vira: Fort Collins Residential development: Project development plan west side of Overland Trail at 60 single-family/25 multi- approved Elizabeth Street family units on 34.7 acres Caribou Apartments: Fort Collins Residential development: Project development plan Southwestern corner of 193 affordable multi-family approved Timberline Road and Caribou units on 10.3 acres Street Dry Creek Fort Collins Request to replat for Request in review 230 single-family lots East Ridge: Southeastern Fort Collins Development of 393 single- Project development plan in • corner of Timberline Road and family lots, parks, and open review Vine Drive spaces on 153.3 acres Fox Meadows Business Park Fort Collins Request for a 25,000 sq. ft. Project development plan Tract B Timberline Plaza: health club on 3.4 acres approved Southeastern corner of Timberline Road and Bighorn Road Front Range Village: Corbett Fort Collins Regional shopping center on Under construction Drive and Harmony Road 100 acres Lind Property: Northeastern Fort Collins Construction of 158 dwelling Project development plan corner of CR 11 and CR 52 units on 44.2 acres approved Frey Avenue Cottages: Fort Collins Request for 5 single-family Project development plan Southeastern corner of Frey homes on 3.4 acres approved Avenue and LaPorte Avenue Old Town North: Oslender Fort Collins Request for 40 single-family Project development plan Street to Pascal Street homes in 8 buildings approved Rigden Farm: Northeastern Fort Collins Development of 63 condos Project development plan corner/Southeastern corner of and assisted living facility on approved Custer Drive and Iowa Drive 5.0 acres Seven Generations Office Fort Collins Request for 48,000 sq. ft. of Project development plan Park: Southwestern corner of flex/office space on 3.6 approved Eastbrook Drive and Vermont acres Drive Talon Estates: West of South Fort Collins Request for 13 single-family Project development plan in Taft Hill Road,80 lots on 9.4 acres review north of Falcon Drive • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project The Center at Rigden Farms Fort Collins Request to develop 95,000 Project development plan sq.ft.of commercial space approved in 11 structures Trailhead Village Townhomes: Fort Collins Development of 100 Project development plan North of E. Vine Drive and townhomes on 16.4 acres approved Greenfields Water's Edge at Richard's Fort Collins Development of 394 units on Project development plan Lake: Northwest of Richard's 108 acres approved Lake Road and Turnberry Road Greeley Construction of 53 individual Approved Residential and commercial developments totaling over development throughout the 4,550 residential, City of Greeley commercial, and office units distributed throughout the city. Elementary School#95 Jefferson Elementary school to Planning stages County accommodate 576 students Ralston Valley High School Jefferson High school to Planning stages County accommodate 600 students Grand Station at Centerra: Larimer Development of 1 million sq. Approved • I-25 and US 34 County ft. of mixed use development on 60 acres The Shops at Hover Crossing: Longmont Commercial development Development review 17th Avenue E. of Hover Street and west of Cook Court AJ Martinez Business Park: Longmont Light industrial development Conditionally approved North of Nelson Road between on 8.4 acres 89th Street and Nelson Park Lane American Honda Motor Center: Longmont Data center and office on Conditionally approved Longmont Business Center 60,700 sq.ft. Beaucanon Villas: Longmont Residential development: Approved Southwestern corner of Pace 140 condominiums on Street and Mountain View 15.2 acres Avenue CARA Investments: 907 South Longmont Development of 3,600 sq.ft. Development review Sherman Street building for an auto repair/towing operations Clover Meadow:West of Longmont Development of 9 single- Conditionally approved Fordham Street and north of family residential lots on 2.6 Clover Basing Drive acres Diagonal Trade Center: Longmont Development of industrial Under construction Southeast of SH 119 and west distribution center of South Sherman Street Dry Creek detention basin and Longmont Development of regional Development review Community Park detention basin in conjunction with Community Park. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Eastgate Development: Longmont Development of Development review Southwestern corner of 17th 148 residential units on Avenue and County Line Road 74 acres Grandview Meadows: East of Longmont Development of Conditionally approved Grandview Meadows Drive 96 apartments on 5.8 acres and South of Redmond Drive Harvest Junction: Between Longmont Mixed use development on Under construction Ken Pratt Boulevard and 24 acres Quail Road Holiday Inn Express: Longmont Commercial development on Under construction Longmont Business Center 1.9 acres Hover Place: West of Charles Longmont Development of 48 multi- Under construction Drive, E. of Hover Park family units on 3.7 acres Main Street Market Place: Longmont Development of 8,239 sq.ft. Development review West of Main Street and south commercial building of 19th Avenue Mountain Vistas: Northwestern Longmont Residential development: Development review corner of 9th Avenue and 124 dwelling units for Hover Street assisted living on 8.7 acres Pleasant Valley: South of Longmont Residential development: Development review SH 66, north of 17th Avenue, 56 single-family dwellings on • and west of Pace Street 20 acres Prairie Village: South of SH 66, Longmont Residential development: Development review west of Alpine Street, north of 71 lots on 15.7 acres 21st Avenue Primrose Schools: Longmont Longmont Construction of 10,620 sq. Approved Business Center ft. daycare/preschool Provenance: Southeastern Longmont Residential development: Development review corner of SH 66 and Sundance 227 lots on 76 acres Drive Red Fox Run: North of East 9th Longmont Residential development: Conditionally approved Avenue between Fox Hill Drive 35 condominium units on and Wolf Creek Drive 6.5 acres Renaissance: North and south Longmont Residential development: Conditionally approved of Clover Basin Drive, east of 143 single-family dwellings Meadow Mountain, and west of on 38.4 acres the Renaissance Sandstone Market Place: Longmont Commercial development: Development review Southeastern corner of SH 119 150,000 sq. ft. including a and County Line Road Wal-Mart Supercenter and Sam's Club Sienna Park: Southwestern Longmont Residential development: Approved corner of South Sherman 45 homes on 18.4 acres Street and Kansas Avenue Somerset Meadows: West of Longmont Residential development: Development review Airport Road and south of Pike 14 lots Road Tapestry Townhomes: West of Longmont Residential development: Development review • Renaissance Drive, south of 72 townhomes on 6.7 acres Renaissance Development Cumulative Impacts 3.26-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project The Oaks at Longmont: South Longmont Residential development: Development review of SH 66, north of 17th 96 condominiums on Avenue,west of County Line 19.9 acres Road, and E. of Main Street Union Development Plan: Longmont Mixed use development: Development review Northeast Circle of SH 119 and 317 single-family units, 5 WCR 3.5 blocks for commercial/religious on 313 acres Xilinx: South of Logic Drive Longmont Industrial development on Conditionally approved and west of SH 119 33.1 acres CTC Business Center: North of Louisville Development of 315,973 sq. Approved Dillon Rd,west of SH 42 ft. of office, light industry, and warehousing Takoda Village: Louisville Development of 32.4 acres City council hearing 271 96th Street Gateway Subdivision: Louisville Residential development Proposed South Boulder Road and McCaslin Boulevard Park Villas: Louisville Single-family development Preliminary plat 200 West South Boulder Road . North End Properties: Louisville Mixed use development: Approved North of South Boulder Road 350 dwelling units, 65,550 sq.ft. commercial, 18.6 acres of public land Lincoln Place: Loveland Mixed use development: Under construction 5th and North Lincoln Avenue 200 apartments and 22,000 sq. ft. of commercial Wal-Mart Supercenter: Loveland Commercial development Permitted 250 West 65th Street Mirasol Senior Apartments: Loveland Residential development Permitted Finch Street and South and community center Madison Avenue Eagle Crossing: Loveland Development of 180-acre Permitted 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard business park St. Louis Village: Loveland Development of 28 single- General development plan East 1st Street and South family units on 4 acres Street Louis Avenue High Country Farms: Loveland Residential development: General development plan East of US 287, south of 442 single-family units on SH 402 69 acres Staples Farm: Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat North Taft Ave, north of Big 24 single-family lots on Thompson River 15 acres Orchards Estates: Loveland Mixed residential Planning stages Southwest of 29th Street and development north Garfield Avenue • Timberpark Offices: Loveland Development of 104,000 sq. Planning stages 1st Street ft. of office on 9 acres Cumulative Impacts 3.26-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Millenium: Loveland Development of 115,694 sq. Special review Southwest of Rocky Mountain. ft. of commercial/office Avenue and CR 24E space on 87 acres; 84 residential dwellings Top Acres: North of US 34 and Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat east of Cascade Avenue 39 lots on 8 acres Meadowbrook Ridge: West of Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat North Wilson Avenue between 180 lots on 37 acres 22nd Street and 29th Street Sanctuary at the Park: Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat North Monroe Avenue and 208 lots on 17 acres east 23rd Street Willow Park: North Monroe Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat Ave and east 23rd Street 22 lots on 5 acres Ridge at Thompson Valley: Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat Northeast of 42nd Street and 152 single-family lots on South Lincoln Avenue 1-24 acres Lee Farm: Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat West of North Wilson Avenue 620 single-family lots and and north of 36th Street 480 multi-family lots on 246 acres Copper Ridge: Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat • North of West 57th Street 117 single-family lots and between North Taft Avenue 117 multi-family units on and North Garfield Avenue 56 acres Lodge at 7 Lakes: South of E. Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat 37th Street at Horseshoe Lake 132 units on 9 acres Fairgrounds Hotel: Loveland Residential development: Preliminary plat 1-25 north of Crossroads 315,488 sq. ft. hotel space Boulevard on 20 acres Lakeview Development: Loveland Lakeshore development: Preliminary plat West of Boyd Lake Avenue 255 single-family lots on and north of CR 24E 1-60 acres Longs Subdivision: Loveland Residential development: Planning stages Between 1st and 14th Street 33 single-family lots on west of Mariano Reservoir 26 acres Thompson Overlook: Loveland Residential development: Final plat Southeast of North Wilson 29 units on 10 acres Avenue and West Eisenhower Boulevard Hunters Run West: Loveland Residential development: Final plat West of North Wilson 212 single-family lots on Boulevard at 29th Street 146 acres Dakota Glen: Loveland Residential development: Final plat East of Cummings and north of 94 single-family lots, 14th Street 112 multi-family lots on 127 acres Mariana Butte: Loveland Residential development: Planning stages • North of 1st Street, west of 91 single-family lots on Marianne Butte Golf Course 49 acres Cumulative Impacts 3.26-12 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 US • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Glen Isle Town Center: Loveland Commercial development: Planning stages Southwestern corner of North 107,910 sq. ft. on 11 acres Wilson Avenue and West 43rd Street Kendall Brook: North Taft Loveland Residential development: Planning stages Avenue and West 43rd Street 188 units on 6 acres Overlook at Mariana: Loveland Residential development: Planning stages North of 1st Street and west of 67 single-family lots on George Flat Reservoir 35 acres Larkridge Regional Retail Thornton Retail/commercial Under construction Center: 1-25 and SH 7 development Hilltop Village Center: Thornton Retail/commercial Under construction 136th Avenue and development Colorado Boulevard Northridge Retail Center: Thornton Retail/commercial Under construction 128th Avenue between development Colorado Boulevard and Bellaire Street Quebec Riverdale: 128th Thornton Commercial development: Approved Avenue and Quebec Street 258 residential units Northview Business Park: Thornton Retail/commercial Under construction • 124th Avenue and development Washington Street Shops at Settlers Chase: Thornton Retail/commercial Under construction 104th Avenue and development Steele Street 98th Avenue and Thornton Retail/commercial Under construction Washington Boulevard development Adams 12 Middle School: Westminster School Under construction 128th Avenue and Huron Street Colorado Ridge Church: Westminster Church Proposed Southwestern corner of 122nd Avenue and Park Centre Drive Country Club Highlands: Westminster Residential/commercial Under construction Northeastern corner of development 120th Avenue and Zuni Street Country Club Village: Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction Northeastern corner of 120th development Avenue and Federal Boulevard Foster Property: 136th Avenue Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction and Orchard Parkway development Harmony Park: Northwestern Westminster Residential development: Under construction corner of 128th and 313 single-family units Zuni Street Huntington Trails: Westminster Residential development: Under construction • Southwestern corner of 144th 210 single-family units Avenue and Huron Street Cumulative Impacts 3.26-13 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Interchange Business Park: Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction Southwestern corner of 136th development and I-25 The Orchard: Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction Northeastern corner of 144th development Avenue and Huron Street Quail Crossing: Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction Southwestern corner of 136th development and Huron Street Park Center Place: Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction Northeastern corner of 120th development Avenue and Tejon Street Sedona Office Complex: Westminster Office Proposed Northwestern corner of 124th Avenue and Huron Street Savannah Suites: Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed Northwestern corner of 124th development Avenue and Huron Street Orchard View: Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed Southeastern corner of 144th development Avenue and Huron Street Northridge Commons: Westminster Office Proposed • Northwestern corner of 122nd Avenue and Pecos Street Meadow Point: Northeastern Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed corner of 92nd Avenue and development Sheridan Boulevard Covenant: Northwestern Westminster Office Proposed corner of 112th Street and Sheridan Boulevard Bradburn: Westminster Traditional mixed use Under construction South of 120th Avenue and development of 535 units west of Lowell Boulevard and a church Cedar Bridge: Westminster Residential development: Under construction Northeastern corner of 111th 12 single-family units Avenue and Bryant Court Northwest Business Park: Westminster Traditional mixed use Under construction Northwestern corner of 108th development of 600 units Avenue and Westminster Boulevard Cottonwood Village: Westminster Residential development: Under construction Northwestern corner of 88th 82 multi-family units Avenue and Federal Boulevard Elliot Street Duplexes: Westminster Residential development: Proposed Northeastern corner of 104th 10 single-family units Avenue and Elliot Street Family in Christ Community Westminster Church Under construction Church: Northwestern corner • of 113th and Sheridan Cumulative Impacts 3.26-14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Highlands at Westbury: Westminster Residential development: Under construction Northeastern corner of 112th 201 single-family units Street and Pecos Street Hyland Village:Southwestern Westminster Traditional mixed use Proposed corner of 98th Avenue and development of 483 units Sheridan Boulevard Lake Arbor Industrial: Westminster Retail/commercial Approved West of Marshall Court and development 89th Avenue Church Ranch Home: 7399 Westminster Business park Proposed Church Ranch Boulevard West 101st Court: Westminster Residential development: Proposed Southwestern corner of 101st 12 single-family units Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard Keystone Senior Housing: Westminster Senior housing Proposed Southwestern corner of 112th Avenue and Federal Boulevard Legacy Ridge: Westminster Residential development: Under construction Between 104th and 113th on 409 single-family units Sheridan Boulevard • Primrose Academy: Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed Northwestern corner of 118th development and Sheridan Boulevard Myananda Residences and Westminster Traditional mixed use Proposed Spa: development:68 units 10650 Promenade North Drive Ranch Reserve II: Westminster Residential development: Under construction Northwestern corner of 112th 61 single-family units Avenue and Ranch Reserve Savory Farm Estates: 111th Westminster Residential development: Proposed Avenue and Federal Boulevard 28 single-family units Sheridan Green Commercial Westminster Office Under construction Center: Southwestern corner of 112th Avenue and Benton Street Countryside: Northeastern Westminster Residential development: Approved corner of Countryside Drive 10 single-family units and Simms Street North Wadsworth Business Westminster Office Proposed Center: Northeastern corner of 108th Avenue and Dover Street Meadow View: 107th Avenue Westminster Residential development: Under construction and Simms Street 20 single-family units Mission Hill: Northwestern Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction corner Wadsworth Parkway development • and 88th Avenue Mountain Vista Village: Westminster Residential development: Approved 86th Avenue and Yukon Street 24 single-family units Cumulative Impacts 3.26-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Village at Standley Lake: Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction Northwestern corner of 100th development Avenue and Wadsworth Parkway. Walnut Grove: 104th Avenue Westminster Residential development: Under construction and Wadsworth Parkway. 66 single-family units Wayne Carl Middle School: Westminster School Under construction 100th Avenue and Countryside Westmoor Technology Park: Westminster Office Proposed 108th Avenue and Simms Street DeCroce: Westminster Office Under construction Southwestern corner of 101st and Church Ranch Boulevard Kokoszka: Westminster Office Proposed 7985 Church Ranch Boulevard Covenant Retirement Westminster Residential development: Approved Community: 30 senior housing units 9030 Yarrow Street Woodrow Wilson Charter Westminster School Under construction School: 8300 West 92nd Avenue • My Business Park at Westminster Office Approved Mandalay: 108th Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard East Bay: 68th Avenue and Westminster Mixed residential Under construction Lowell Boulevard development: 59 units La Conte Shopping Center: Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed Northeastern corner of 72nd development Avenue and Federal Boulevard Harris Park: Westminster Residential development: Proposed 7300-7365 Lowell Boulevard 12 townhomes Village at Walnut Creek: Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction South of Lower Church Lake development Valle Vista: 104th Avenue and Westminster Retail/commercial Under construction Federal Boulevard development Westfield: 95th Avenue and Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed Federal Boulevard development Green Acres Commercial: Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed Northeastern corner of 112th development Avenue and Sheridan Hylands Baptist Church: Westminster Church Under construction Southwestern corner of 92nd Avenue and Utica Street Alpine Vista: Northwestern Westminster Residential development: Under construction corner of 88th Avenue and 100 townhomes Lowell Boulevard Walgreens: Southeastern Westminster Retail/commercial Proposed • corner of 96th Avenue and development Sheridan Boulevard Cumulative Impacts 3.26-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Ball Campus: 108th Avenue Westminster Office Under construction and Wadsworth Parkway Christ Community Covenant Westminster Church Approved Church: Northwestern corner of 100th Avenue and Wadsworth Parkway. Village at Harris Park: Westminster Mixed residential Proposed Northwestern corner of development: 38 units 73rd Avenue and Bradburn Shoenberg Farms: Westminster Mixed Under construction Northwestern corner of residential/retail/commercial 72nd Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard Spresser Chiropractic Clinic: Westminster Retail/commercial Approved 7490 Sheridan Boulevard development Street Anthony North: Westminster Office Approved 84th Avenue and Alcott Street Summit Pointe: Westminster Residential development: Under construction Southeastern corner of 74 single-family units 82nd Avenue and Clay Street Shoenberg Farms: Westminster Mixed residential Approved • Northeastern corner 72nd development Avenue and Depew Street Holy Trinity Catholic Church Westminster Church Proposed Crystal Lakes: Southeastern Westminster Office Proposed corner of 75th Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard Harris Park Square: 7249 and Westminster Traditional mixed use Proposed 7287 Lowell Boulevard development Adams County Government Westminster Facility development Land purchased Center Orchard Town Center: Westminster Retail/entertainment: Under construction 1-25 and 144th Avenue 215 acres Prairie Gateway: Westminster Mixed use development: Under construction Quebec Street between SH 2 917 acres and 56th Avenue Avery Meadows: Windsor Residential development: Master plan Southeastern corner of single-family suburban WCR 15 and WCR 70 Eastbrook Subdivision: Windsor Mixed use development: Rezoning Northwestern corner or residential mixed use Main Street and WCR 2 Fossil Ridge Subdivision: Windsor Residential development Development review 5515 Evangeline Drive Highland Meadows Golf Windsor Residential/commercial Rezoning Community: Southeastern development corner of Fairgrounds Avenue • and Colonial Drive Poudre Heights: Northwestern Windsor Mixed use development: Rezoning, final site plan corner of CR 17 and CR 64 586 units Cumulative Impacts 3.26-17 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 3.26.2 Land Development Projects within the Regional Study Area (cont'd) Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project The Oxbow on the River: Windsor Residential mixed use Rezoning, subdivision South of Poudre River and SH 392 west of County Line Road Shiloh Creek: Windsor Residential mixed use Annexation, subdivision Northeastern corner of development WCR 74 and County Line Road Ptarmigan Business Park: Windsor Commercial business park Site plan Northeastern corner of CR 392 and 1-25 Westwood Village: Windsor Commercial development Subdivision, site plan Southeastern corner of 14th Street and Main Street Highlands: Windsor Mixed use development Annexation, rezoning Northeastern corner of Crossroads Boulevard and County Line Road Winter Farm Subdivision: Windsor Residential mixed use Subdivision Southeastern corner of development WCR 70 and WCR 19 Water Valley Subdivision: Windsor Residential mixed use Subdivision, site plan • North of Crossroads development, open space Boulevard, south of Eastman, and golf course east of 7th Street Trautman Subdivision: Windsor Residential development Subdivision Southeastern corner of 7th Street and Crossroads Boulevard Southgate Business Park: Windsor Commercial business park Subdivision, site plan SH 34 and CR 17 River Valley Crossing: Windsor Commercial development Annexation, master plan Southwestern corner of Main Street and 15th Street Highlands Industrial Park: Windsor Light and heavy industrial Site plan Highlands Meadows Pkwy. development and Crossroads Boulevard Jacoby Farm: Windsor Residential/commercial Final site plan Northwestern corner of Main development Street and 15th Street Great Western Development: Windsor Heavy industrial park Rezoning, site plan Southeastern corner of WCR 23 and WCR 64 Fairgrounds Business Park: Windsor Business park with industrial Subdivision Northeastern corner of and commercial use Crossroads Boulevard/LCR 5 • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-18 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Table 3.26-3 Major Infrastructure Projects within the Regional Study Area Project Name/Location Jurisdiction Description Type of Project Halligan Seamen Reservoir Larimer Coordinated enlargement of DEIS in progress County Halligan and Milton- Seaman Reservoirs in Larimer County to improve water management for Fort Collins and Greeley. Moffat Collection System U.S. Army Development of 18,000 DEIS in progress Project Corps of acre-feet per year of new, Engineers annual firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant. Northern Integrated Supply U.S. Army Water infrastructure to bring DEIS in progress Project Corps of more water to the Front Engineers Range; Preferred Alternative is the construction of Glade Reservoir and South Platte Water Conservation Project. Windy Gap Firming Project— U.S. Bureau Water infrastructure to bring DEIS in progress Big Thompson Project of more Colorado River water Reclamation to the Front Range; • Construction of Reservoirs and other facilities Big Dry Creek Wastewater Westminster Storage building/wastewater Under construction/ Plant: 131st Avenue and plant expansion Proposed Huron Street Additional future actions not included in Table 3.26-1, Table 3.26-2, or Table 3.26-3 include the following: ► Expansion of local transit services in Fort Collins, Johnstown, and Windsor ► New RTD park-n-Rides: Church Ranch, Superior/Louisville, Flatiron Circle, and Broomfield ► Infill, redevelopment, or revitalization plans in Longmont and Loveland ► Sidewalk improvements and minor trail connections in Broomfield ► River restoration, most notably the Fort Collins Downtown River Corridor Implementation Plan, which protects and enhances the Cache La Poudre River ► Minor water/sewer improvements ► Annexation proposals As Table 3.26-1, Table 3.26-2, and Table 3.26-3 show, substantial development is anticipated within the regional study area in the near future. Development is especially strong in northern communities, where large residential and commercial developments are anticipated. • Development is also strong in Westminster, where large residential and commercial developments are under construction. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-19 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.26.2 Affected Environment The Affected Environment section provides the historical context for the cumulative impact analysis and includes an assessment of historical growth and development within the region. Historical actions impacting resources of concern are described in greater detail for each resource in Section 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences. Early settlement in the area between Denver and Wellington began in the 1800s with the cultivation of agriculture. Some of the earliest settlers developed planned communities under the colony movement. The premise behind this movement was to have an entire group of people, or colony, settle an area together in a cooperative manner rather than have each family unit settle on its own. Colonies were established in Greeley, Platteville, Green City, and Evans. Shortly after colony communities were established, individual settlers came out to Colorado and moved into Weld County. In the 1860s, the area was an agriculturally productive region, which had expanded from dry crop production to include cattle grazing and production. In the late 1880s, new advances in farm machinery (e.g., steam-powered tractors) allowed farmers to increase the size of their farms and acreage of their harvests. By 1895, Weld County had become one of the major potato producing areas of the nation. Feedlots and meat packing operations associated with Monfort, Inc. (established in 1930) had a major influence on the economy and population the regional study area north and south of Greeley. The Monfort feedlot grew quickly into one of the largest in the country, with a 3,500-head capacity in the midst of World War II, 8,000 by 1950, and 32,000 by 1960. During the 1960s the feedlot expanded rapidly into the first 100,000-head feedlot by 1968. In 1960, • Monfort purchased a slaughterhouse in Greeley and five years later added processing to the plant. Sugar beet cultivation and processing had a major influence on the regional study area in the late part of the 19th century. The state agricultural college in Fort Collins (now Colorado State University) experimented with sugar beets and helped publicize their suitability for the irrigated plains. In 1901, a sugar beet processing facility was opened in Loveland. Local farmers started producing sugar beets in such quantities that the Loveland plant could not process them all. As a result, sugar beet processing plants were built in Greeley, Eaton, Fort Lupton, and Windsor. In 1905, the Great Western Sugar Company was formed and thousands of acres of sugar beets were brought into production, as were many new settlers to grow beets, ship beets, and process beets. Sugar beets continued to be a strong part of the region's economy through World War II, until beet diseases and competition from other sweeteners led to their eventual demise. The "Dust Bowl," although geographically defined by the federal government to include southern but not northeastern Colorado, still had a major impact on agricultural production in northern Colorado throughout the 1930s. Farmers eventually recovered and continued to prosper. By the mid-1970s, Weld County was ranked number one in the state of Colorado for total crop value. The development of the railroads supported the burgeoning agricultural economy of the regional study area. Operational in 1870, the Denver Pacific rail line traveled through Weld County in a general north-south direction, bringing settlers to Colorado and facilitating • the distribution of agricultural products. Although the Denver Pacific was the first railroad through Weld County, numerous other railroads were developed in the ensuing decades that extended service to other agricultural areas. The Burlington and Missouri River Railway Cumulative Impacts 3.26-20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. extended their line west from McCook, Nebraska, reaching Denver in the early 1880s. The Union Pacific then built a line from La Salle generally following the valley of the South Platte River eastward to Julesburg. This made a good network and a solid connection to the eastern regions of the United States. In promoting their service, the railroads encouraged thousands of farmers to relocate to this area. As rural areas developed, the pressure increased for local and regional roadway connections. Early roadways were built between Denver and Fort Collins, through Denver, and in Greeley. The beginnings of the interstate system came with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. This act directed the Bureau of Public Roads to create a master plan for an interstate highway system. After the planning, little else was done until the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized $25 billion for 12 years to move forward with construction of a national system of interstate and defense highways. Interstate 25 was completed during the 1960s. Traffic far exceeded original projections and numerous improvements and expansions have been constructed over the years. By the late 1980s, new off-ramps known as flyovers helped drivers get on and off 1-25 at greater speeds. The access improvements provided by the interstate system spurred new growth along 1-25, which has necessitated further capacity and interchange improvements. The North Front Range of Colorado has experienced tremendous growth over the past 50 years. As Table 3.26-4 shows, Adams, Boulder, and Larimer counties experienced the greatest increase in population between 1950 and 2000. This growth has translated into the development of housing, employment centers, and community facilities, focused in the • 38 incorporated cities and towns present in the regional study area today. Table 3.264 Census Population Totals by County 1950-2000 County Population 1950 1970 1990 2000 Percent(%)Change 1950 to 2000 Adams 40,234 185,789 265,038 363,857 804% Boulder 48,296 131,889 225,339 291,288 503% Broomfield --- 7,261 24,638 38,272 427%1 Denver 415,786 514,678 467,610 554,636 33% Larimer 43,554 89,900 186,136 251,494 477% Weld 67,504 89,297 131,821 180,936 168% 'Percent change in Broomfield is calculated between 1970 and 2000,since data for 1950 is not available. Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office, Historical Census 1870-2000. Based on population and housing forecasts prepared by DRCOG and NFRMPO, population is expected to continue to increase within the regional study area through 2035, whether or not any transportation improvements related to this project are implemented. According to the data provided by these organizations, population within the regional study area is expected to increase 69 percent between 2005 and 2035, translating into approximately 317,648 new households. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.26.3 Environmental Consequences 3.26.3.1 LAND USE In the early 20th century, the regional study area mostly contained small farming or mining communities. Larger cities with a variety of land use activities included Denver, Greeley, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Boulder. Population growth and increasing water availability (made possible by the Colorado-Big Thompson River Project in 1937) contributed to the expanding development that occurred throughout the 1950s as undeveloped communities began to devote more agricultural land to residential and employment uses. Construction of 1-25 north out of Denver began in the early 1960s. By the time the final segment between Fort Collins and Wellington was completed in 1968, low-density, suburban residential development was expanding outward from major city centers along the highway. Expansion of 1-25 helped spur development north of Denver and contributed to land use change in the years that have followed. Communities whose town centers had been built along the BNSF rail line (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont) realized that access to 1-25 was crucial to increasing commercial and industrial growth in their cities. In response, they began developing commercial and residential uses east of their city centers and closer to 1-25. Population growth, development, and land use change have continued within the regional study area. Industrial development along the UPRR between Greeley and Denver has resulted in the expansion of residential and employment uses in the communities of Brighton and Fort Lupton. Major commercial centers (e.g., Flatirons Crossing, Centerra) have developed around • highway corridors. Residential development has continued north of Denver in a suburban pattern. Communities have used programs to preserve open space, parks, and agricultural lands as a means to separate themselves from other cities and towns in the region. This has, in turn, spurred development in smaller surrounding communities. Table 3.26-5 shows land uses in the regional study area between 1950 and 2005. Acres of land devoted to agricultural uses in the regional study area have decreased by 17 percent between 1950 and 2005. During the same time period, acres of land devoted to employment and residential uses have increased by 8 percent and 14 percent respectively. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-22 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3.26-5 Land Use Change in Acres 1950-2005 Approximate Acres Land Use Category 1950 1970 1990 2005' Acres % Acres % Acres '6 Acres Agriculture 570,580 75 504,064 66 451,874 59 446,400 58 Employment Area 12,788 2 30,939 4 44,800 6 75,100 10 Parks/Open Space 1,929 <1 6,040 <1 11,121 1 65,300 8 Residential 30,071 4 64,033 8 93,447 12 143,000 18 Transportation 7,557 1 12,447 2 13,225 2 -_z -_z Vacant-Unknown 124,195 16 123,120 16 123,515 16 6,400 1 Water 13,939 2 20,415 3 23,077 3 39,900 5 Total 761,059 100 761,059 100 761,058 100 776,100' 100 Notes: Land use data from the USGS, Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project,and Land Characterization Program is not available for years after 1990. Land use acreages in 2005 are derived from Section 3.1 Land Use.As a result, minor differences in the data can be noted: 'Total acres within the regional study area differ between data sets.The USGS did not collect data in the northernmost part of the regional study area,which may account for the discrepancy. 2 Land use classifications differ between data sets.As a result,there is no classification for Transportation recorded for 2005. Source:U.S. Geological Survey, Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project, Land Characterization Program. • As part of this Final EIS, reasonably foreseeable future developments and land use plans were reviewed to assess future growth patterns. Based on this review, it is expected that the general pattern of urbanization would continue. Development would continue outward from town centers and more agricultural land would be converted for employment and residential uses. This pattern of growth is expected to occur regardless of whether the improvements considered in this Final EIS are implemented. DRCOG envisions future growth and development as relatively compact with high-density mixed-use urban centers along major transportation corridors. According to the DRCOG 2035 MVRTP (DRCOG, 2007) many significant challenges must be addressed to fulfill this vision. Regional challenges include severe traffic congestion that can impede economic development and job creation; concerns about air quality, water quality and water supply; the burden of paying for new facilities and services required to serve growth; and preservation of open space for current and future generations. The North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (NFRMPO, 2007) also cites interregional commuting, jobs/housing imbalance, and sprawl as challenges presented by regional growth. Likely major impacts resulting from development are increased impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, driveways, rooftops, parking lots), loss of agricultural lands, loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat, degradation of air and water quality, loss of wetlands and aquatic resources, declining quality of life, and stress on infrastructure, water availability and water supply. Minimizing these impacts will require regional coordination. This is a particular challenge in southwest Weld County, where pressure to develop rural agricultural land has been increasing • and local jurisdictions are in disagreement as to where, when, and how growth should occur. In the absence of intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, development could result in a fragmented urban landscape that is costly to service and maintain. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Under the No-Action Alternative, anticipated development along 1-25 would continue based on market forces and in accordance with city and county plans as described in Section 3.1 Land Use. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements, regional visions for compact development along major transportation corridors would not be realized. Implementation of Package A would support regional planning and municipal planning efforts (including transit-oriented development) as described in Section 3.1 Land Use. Under Package B, anticipated development along 1-25 would continue in accordance with city and county plans. Bus rapid transit would support this development. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements in Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont, development would most likely continue to spread outward from city centers. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Packages A and B, and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. The Preferred Alternative would be mostly compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans, with impacts similar to those described for Package A. Conversion of agricultural and open lands into urban uses will continue regardless of whether a build package is implemented or not. The construction of a build package would not contribute noticeably to cumulative land use impacts in comparison to what is already anticipated through land development projects and other roadway improvements, especially since the construction of most of the three packages will occur over a long period of time. Implementing Package A or the Preferred Alternative could minimize the conversion of agricultural land in the outlying areas of communities along the BNSF rail line as development shifts toward higher densities and urban centers in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont. • 3.26.3.2 WATER QUALITY There are six watersheds in the regional study area: the South Platte River, Clear Creek, Big Dry Creek, St. Vrain Creek/Boulder Creek, Big Thompson River, and Cache La Poudre River. Numerous streams, tributaries, canals, ditches, reservoirs, and lakes are either adjacent to or cross under 1-25, US 85, or the BNSF (see Figure 3.7-2 in Section 3.7 Water Resources). Before land cultivation for agriculture, the natural ecosystem was largely unaffected by human activity. Oil and gas development, agricultural activity, and urbanization have impacted water quality. Some surface waters in the regional study area do not currently meet water quality standards. These impaired streams were identified by CDPHE- Water Quality Control Division and are listed in the 303(d) List of Impaired Streams. Streams that do not meet established water quality standards are required to go through a remediation process (i.e., total maximum daily load analysis) to help improve water quality conditions. All but two streams identified as impaired or potentially impaired within the regional study area are attributed to pollutants that are not related to highway construction and operations (E.coli, aquatic life use, organic sediment, and selenium). Typically, the presence of E coli, aquatic life use, organic sediment, and selenium in the surface water are a result of wastewater treatment plant discharges, predominance of invasive invertebrates, industrial discharges, and irrigation return water from high selenium soils, respectively. Because these pollutants are not known to be associated with highways, the improvements identified in Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative are not anticipated to result in an increase of these pollutants in the streams within the regional study area. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-24 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Two stream segments are impaired or potentially impaired from pollutants that are associated with highway construction and operations (Little Thompson River [copper] and Big Dry Creek [iron]). It is estimated that the water quality BMPs that have been included as part of the design will remove up to 38 percent of copper in the runoff. This is approximately the same amount of anticipated increase in copper loading to the Little Thompson River from Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative. The water quality BMPs will remove 50 to 60 percent of the iron, which is more than enough to account for the expected 30 percent increase in iron loading in Big Dry Creek. Therefore, the water quality BMPs will remove copper and iron to a level approximately the same as existing conditions. Agricultural practices have resulted in surface and groundwater contamination. Contaminants include nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), pesticides and herbicides, and volatile organic compounds. Nitrates have consistently exceeded drinking water standards. CDPHE regulations do not apply to irrigation canals and ditches that are present throughout the regional study area despite their important function of transporting drinking water (CDPHE, 2003). Cumulative impacts to water quality would primarily result from changes in hydrologic conditions caused by development already planned in the regional study area. Development rapidly consumes and converts natural landscapes to impervious surfaces such as parking lots, roads, and rooftops. Water runs off these impervious surfaces, often carrying pollutants directly into water bodies instead of allowing for the natural filtering of pollutants through the soil. Impacts that follow include species loss, oxygen depletion, lower groundwater levels, • increased peak flows, and flooding. Impacts associated with additional impervious surface area are typically mitigated through the implementation of best management practices. The analysis of cumulative effects to water quality is broader in scope than what is presented in Section 3.7, Water Resources. Comprehensive mapping of planned developments within the regional study area was not available. As a result, this analysis used area maps from DRCOG and NFRMPO. As part of the traffic analysis process, each traffic analysis zone (TAZ) is classified as one of five general land area types (central business district, central business district-fringe, urban areas, suburban areas, and rural areas). When considered on a very broad, regional scale, these data generally portray where future growth is envisioned. The percent imperviousness for each TAZ area type is derived from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Drainage Criteria Manual (2008). Based on available data and estimated percent impervious surface areas for each general land use type, impervious surface area is anticipated to increase by approximately 69,000 acres (19 percent) between 2005 and 2035 as a result of future urbanization within the regional study area. Future urbanization would occur regardless of whether the improvements under construction are constructed. With the No-Action Alternative, the amount of impervious surface would continue to increase as planned development occurs. Impacts to water quality within the regional study area would result from an increase in surface runoff and pollutants being carried into receiving waters. The greatest change to water quality could occur in the Middle South Platte watershed, due to the large increase in impervious surface area that is anticipated between 2005 and 2035. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Implementation of a build package would facilitate future development along existing transportation corridors, consistent with future land use planning efforts. This would facilitate denser development patterns (particularly for Package A and the Preferred Alternative) and help reduce the impervious surface area associated with development and its related water quality effects. Implementation of a build alternative would result in additional impervious surfaces as a result of highway widening, transit stations, and parking lots. While the build alternatives result in greater total impervious surface area (1,946 acres for Package A, 2,001 acres for Package B, and 1,982 acres for the Preferred Alternative) than the No-Action Alternative, the percentage of the area that will be treated with best management practices is also greater (90.7 percent under Package A, 125 percent under Package B, and 101 percent under the Preferred Alternative). A percentage greater than 100 indicates that the volume provided is greater than the defined water quality capture volume, which is equal to one-half inch of rainfall times the impervious area. Capture volumes greater than 100 percent can sometimes be used to offset other locations on the highway system where 100 percent capture cannot be achieved. For comparative purposes, 5.1 percent of the 1,257 acres of total impervious surface associated with the No-Action Alternative would be treated. Future impacts to water quality could arise from maintenance activities, such as snow plowing, sanding, and deicing. The additional impervious surface area would contribute minimally to water quality impacts when compared to what is expected from planned development. These impacts to water quality would be reduced through implementation of maintenance programs and best management practices in both construction and design (see Section 3.7 Water Resources). 3.26.3.3 WILDLIFE • Past actions affecting wildlife distribution and movement corridors in the regional study area include commercial and residential development, road construction, and gravel mining. These activities have directly displaced wildlife habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, and altered wildlife movements. Although gravel mining temporarily disrupts wildlife habitat, it may also create lakes, which benefit some species. In general, the amount and connectivity of wildlife habitat has declined in the regional study area since 1950. Impacts to wildlife from anticipated development were evaluated using wildlife data from CDOW, field survey data collected by ERO Resources in 2006, Colorado State Patrol vehicle- animal collision data from 1993 to 2004 for wildlife movement corridors, and land use data collected in 2000 (see Section 3.1 Land Use). Geographic information System (GIS) maps depicting future land uses were reviewed to evaluate expected impacts on wildlife. Future land use maps were based on forecasts for 2035 from DRCOG and the NFRMPO, as described in Section 3.1 Land Use. Land uses that provide habitat for wildlife include agriculture, open space, parks, surface water areas, and vacant lands. Residential and commercial land uses are less likely to provide habitat for wildlife because they are more developed. According to data provided in Section 3.1 Land Use, approximately 210,800 acres of agricultural and vacant lands are expected to be converted to residential and commercial land uses between 2000 and 2035. Open spaces and parks are expected to increase by 116,100 acres during the same period. Lands protected or enhanced for wildlife would help to offset some of the effects of overall • habitat loss. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-26 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. General wildlife habitat in the regional study area would be expected to decline with highway expansion, residential and commercial development, and the decrease of open lands used for agriculture. Residential and commercial development also will contribute to habitat fragmentation and further reduce open areas used as movement corridors by wildlife. Disruption of movement corridors, vehicle collisions with wildlife, and habitat fragmentation are concerns expressed during scoping meetings with CDOW, other agencies, and the public. The potential for cumulative impacts to wildlife corridors or crossing sites as a result of reasonably foreseeable projects is described below. If direct or indirect effects from the North 1-25 project would occur, this is noted. ► 1-25 from SH 1 to SH 14. Substantial new residential and commercial development is expected to occur in this area by 2035. However, no major wildlife movement corridors or crossing sites were identified in this area. ► Fossil Creek Reservoir at SH 392. Windsor and Fort Collins slate this area for development. However, no major wildlife movement corridors or crossing sites were identified in this area. ► Cache La Poudre River at 1-25. Future land use mapping shows limited growth in the area around 1-25 and the Poudre River. Mapping also shows a substantial increase in the area planned for designation as open space or parkland along the river. Future land uses are likely to support the continued use of the Cache la Poudre River at 1-25 as a wildlife movement corridor. • ► Big Thompson River at 1-25. Future land use mapping shows planned residential and commercial development south of the Big Thompson River at 1-25. The land surrounding the river is largely located within the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area west of 1-25 and agricultural land east of 1-25 is likely to remain undeveloped. Future land uses are likely to support the continued use of the Big Thompson River at 1-25 as a wildlife movement corridor. ► Little Thompson River at 1-25. Some residential development is expected south of the Little Thompson River, but in general, the surrounding land use will remain agricultural. The Little Thompson will likely remain a wildlife crossing area. ► 1-25 between Little Thompson and St. Vrain Creek. This area is expected to remain agricultural. Future development would not prevent the area from being used as a wildlife crossing area. ► St. Vrain Creek at 1-25. Extensive new commercial and residential development is planned on both sides of SH 119, potentially fragmenting existing wildlife habitat along St. Vrain Creek. This movement corridor will likely be heavily impacted by future development. ► 1-25 West of Firestone and Frederick. Extensive new development is planned along 1-25 in this area. Wildlife movements are likely to be heavily impacted by this new development. ► Little Dry Creek at 1-25. New commercial and residential developments are planned west of 1-25 and near the I-25/E-470 interchange. New development will likely affect wildlife movements in the area. ► Big Dry Creek at 1-25. Big Dry Creek at 1-25 is located in an area that is already • developed. Impacts to wildlife movements from new development are expected to be low. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-27 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► Fossil Creek at the BNSF Rail Line. The area around Fossil Creek at the proposed commuter rail alignment is mostly built out and is not expected to have substantial new residential or commercial growth. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in moderate impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. ► Big Thompson River at the BNSF Rail Line. Much of the land along this reach of the river is protected parks or open space. Changes in land use near this wildlife-crossing site are expected to be minimal. ► Little Thompson River at the BNSF Rail Line. Land use near the Little Thompson River at 1-25 is expected to remain agricultural with few changes planned. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in moderate impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. ► Ish Reservoir Area. Land use in the area around Ish Reservoir is expected to remain mostly agricultural, with few changes planned. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in high impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. ► St. Vrain Creek at SH 119. Extensive new commercial and residential development is planned on both sides of SH 119, potentially fragmenting existing wildlife habitat along St. Vrain Creek. This movement corridor will likely be heavily impacted by future • development. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in moderate impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. ► BNSF Rail Line west of Firestone and Frederick. Extensive new development is planned along 1-25 near this wildlife crossing area. Wildlife movements in this area are likely to be heavily impacted by the new development. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in high impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. ► Little Dry Creek at the BNSF Rail Line. Land use in this area is expected to remain mostly agricultural. Impacts to wildlife from future growth would be minimal. Retaining walls and fences adjacent to the commuter rail would create a barrier to wildlife movement, resulting in high impacts to wildlife. These impacts would only be expected under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. To minimize impacts to wildlife at crossing sites, breaks in fencing would be provided where considerable wildlife conflicts are expected. The build packages would widen and extend culverts and bridges. While widening would facilitate wildlife movement, extending the length of a culvert or bridge would lengthen the distance wildlife would have to travel to cross 1-25 or the BNSF rail line. Prairie dog colonies are used as an index of prairie habitat because they provide habitat for a number of other wildlife species and are used as foraging areas by numerous predators including coyotes, badgers, bald eagles, and other raptors. Cumulative impacts to black-tailed • prairie dogs were evaluated by quantifying the potential loss of existing prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of the improvements being evaluated for Package A, Package B, and Cumulative Impacts 3.26-28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. the Preferred Alternative. Currently, there are approximately 1,526 acres of prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of Package A. Planned development would impact 793 acres of these colonies (52 percent) and the construction of improvements included in Package A would impact approximately 60 acres (4 percent). There are approximately 1,812 acres of prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of Package B. Planned development would impact 913 acres of these colonies (50 percent) and the construction of improvements included in Package B would impact 97 acres (5 percent). There are approximately 2,910 acres of prairie dog colonies within one-half of a mile of the Preferred Alternative. Planned development would impact 1,233 acres of these colonies (42 percent) and the construction of improvements included in the Preferred Alternative would impact 86 acres (3 percent). Bald eagle populations in the regional study area have been increasing for the past ten to twenty years, and new nests have been identified in the regional study area every year for the past few years. At least 17 active bald eagle nests were known to occur in the regional study area in 2010, and six of these occur within three miles of the 1-25 improvements or rail alignments. The future increase of bald eagle nesting in the regional study area may be limited from a lack of suitable nesting sites located in areas with large numbers of trees, near water, with a food source nearby, and isolated from human disturbance. Future land use projections show an increase in development in some areas used by bald eagles, such as along SH 119 near the confluence of St. Vrain and Boulder creeks. Loss of foraging habitat, especially loss of prairie dog towns, and increased disturbance from new commercial and residential development, may lead to stabilizing or declining numbers of bald eagles in the regional study • area in the future. The loss of foraging habitat and other impacts from future development would be much greater than impacts from any build package. Historically, populations of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse within the regional study area have most likely declined. Preble's meadow jumping mouse were no longer present at many sites where they had previously been trapped, including near Longmont within the regional study area (Ryon, 1996). Preble's occupied habitat would likely be impacted by planned residential and commercial development along 1-25, south of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson Rivers. In both locations, impacts from any build alternative would be minimal (less than one acre). As described in Section 3.12 Wildlife, Package A would impact 49 raptor nests, 12 wildlife movement corridors, 2 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.8 acres of aquatic habitat. Package B would impact 43 raptor nests, 7 wildlife movement corridors, 2.4 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat, and 2.3 acres of aquatic habitat. The Preferred Alternative would impact 57 raptor nests, 14 wildlife movement corridors, 1.9 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat, and 1.5 acres of aquatic habitat. Planned transportation and development actions will contribute to further loss and degradation of wildlife habitat within the regional study area. Approximately 206,900 acres of agricultural/vacant lands are expected to be converted to residential or commercial land uses. This would occur regardless of whether a build alternative is implemented, resulting in cumulative impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other biological resources in the regional study area. • The construction of a build alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to wildlife in comparison to what is already anticipated through land development projects and other roadway improvements. For example, there are 9,195 acres of important foraging habitat for Cumulative Impacts 3.26-29 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • bald eagles in the study area. Of those, Package A would directly affect 43.1 acres, Package B would directly affect 70.06 acres, and the Preferred Alternative would directly affect 58.2 acres. Each of the three alternatives would affect less than one percent of the important bald eagle foraging habitat in the study area. In addition, less than 1,000 acres of agricultural/vacant lands would be converted to a transportation use. 3.26.3.4 WETLANDS Wetlands in the regional study area are primarily associated with natural drainages, seep areas, ponded sites, and irrigation and roadside ditches. Major drainages within the regional study area include Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, South Platte River, Little Thompson River, Boxelder Creek, Fossil Creek, St. Vrain Creek, Boulder Creek, Little Dry Creek, Coal Creek, and Big Dry Creek. Early explorers and settlers to the Front Range found riparian areas and wetlands to be the most habitable environments. These areas were full of wildlife and game, trees that could be cultivated as timber and water. Wetlands themselves were viewed as waste areas, and the practice of dredging or filling wetlands to convert the land to other uses became standard practice. The rich, alluvial soils could be converted easily to agricultural land by draining the water from the area or channelizing the water for use in irrigation. Although seasonal flooding hampered early development of these areas, settlers learned to adapt to flooding events in order to capitalize on the resources of floodplains. As the area was converted to agricultural land and development spread, wetland loss occurred widespread and at a rapid rate. Although there is no concise inventory of historical wetlands in Colorado, national estimates, • taken from data collected by the National Wetlands Inventory in conjunction with status and trends reports, have shed some light on wetland loss and degradation. It is estimated that Colorado experienced a 50 percent loss of wetlands from the 1700s into the latter part of the 20th century. Rapid urbanization, mining, and agriculture have impacted wetlands in the regional study area greatly since 1940. To study how urban growth has impacted wetlands in the regional study area, data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were used. This analysis involved use of GIS to analyze data that portray land cover over different time periods. The USGS included as wetlands those areas where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface for a significant part of most years and covers more than 25 percent of the land surface. Wetlands less than 2.5 acres in size were not included in the analysis. Thus, the data provide a very gross estimate of wetlands and under report the number and acreage of wetlands in the regional study area. Data collected in the 1970s show approximately 3,188 acres of wetlands present in the regional study area. Data collected in the 1990s shows 2,951 acres of wetlands in the regional study area, a decrease of 237 acres, or 7.4 percent of wetland acreage. This is in accordance with past trends of wetland loss for the area. Wetland scientists conducted wetland delineations that identified 675 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open waters within the project area, which includes 534 acres of wetlands and 141 acres of jurisdictional open waters. Estimating direct impacts of reasonably foreseeable development to wetlands in the regional • study area is difficult, as final design for many of the proposed projects have not yet been determined. As the Denver Metropolitan Corridor spreads northward, planned development is Cumulative Impacts 3.26-30 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. likely to result in further direct and indirect impacts to wetland communities. A conservative estimate of this loss could be up to 300 acres by 2035, assuming the same rate of wetland loss as occurred between 1970 and 1990. Under the No-Action Alternative, wetland degradation and loss is anticipated to continue as growth and development continue to occur in undeveloped areas. Impacts to any jurisdictional wetlands would be mitigated on a one-for-one basis, resulting in no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands. Because CDOT requires mitigation on a one-to-one basis for any wetland impact (regardless of jurisdictional status), there would be no net loss of wetlands as a result of CDOT actions. Package A would directly impact an estimated 18 acres of wetlands and 4 acres of jurisdictional open waters (22 total acres). Package B would directly impact 19 acres of wetlands and 2 acres of jurisdictional open waters (21 total acres). The Preferred Alternative would directly impact 15 acres of wetlands and 3 acres of jurisdictional open waters (18 total acres). Therefore, of the total 675 acres of wetlands and jurisdictional open waters identified within the project area, Package A would impact 3.3 percent, Package B would impact 3.1 percent, and the Preferred Alternative would impact 2.7 percent. Of the approximately 300 acres that could be impacted by reasonably foreseeable future development (with our without a transportation improvement), Package A and the Preferred Alternative have the most potential to result in more concentrated growth near a commuter rail station. This could decrease the acreage of wetlands impacted. • The incremental impact of the build alternatives represents 3.0 percent of the total wetlands and jurisdictional open waters identified in the regional study area. Because CDOT requires mitigation on a one-to-one basis for any wetland impact (regardless of jurisdictional status), there would be no net loss of wetlands as a result of the impacts associated with any of the build alternatives. 3.26.3.5 AIR QUALITY Ambient air quality monitoring began along the Front Range in the 1960s. Data since that time show that pollution emissions controls and programs instituted as a result of the Clean Air Act and its amendments have been successful in reducing criteria pollutant levels. Effective November 20, 2007, the EPA designated the Denver metro area and the north Front Range as a non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3). Ozone is not directly emitted into the atmosphere, but is created by a chemical reaction of various pollutants (nitrogen oxides [NOx] and hydrocarbons)with sunlight. The pollutants that contribute to the generation of ozone are referred to as "precursors". In March 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.080 ppm to 0.075 ppm. The EPA had revoked the 1-hour ozone standard for all areas except for non- attainment Early Action Compact (EAC) areas (areas which have no effective date for their 8-hour designations). Once those areas have a designation date, the 1-hour ozone standard will be revoked one year after the effective designation. The effective date for non-attainment designation was April 15, 2008. Therefore, the 1-hour ozone standard has been revoked as of April 15, 2009 for the Denver metro area and the north Front Range. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26.31 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Rigorous adherence to reduction programs and precursor emissions controls will prevent future air quality deterioration. Future mobile source pollutant emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, PM, and toxics are expected to continue to decline as a result of new low sulfur fuel requirements, stricter retrofit and engine exhaust emission controls, and engine efficiency improvements. Transportation projects that might exacerbate air quality problems must meet certain requirements before they can proceed. Particularly, a regional air quality conformity analysis is needed to show that projects are compatible with the State Implementation Plan. In addition, a local hot spot analysis for carbon monoxide is needed to show that an action will not cause violations of the NAAQS. Potential carbon monoxide and (PM10) hot spots were identified through evaluation of intersections in the regional study area (see Section 3.5 Air Quality). No CO or PM10 hot spots emissions in violation of the NAAQS are predicted to result from the build alternatives under modeled 2035 traffic volumes. While the number of pollution sources is expected to grow, pollution emissions are not expected to increase proportionately due to implementation of stricter regulatory controls such as evaporative emissions controls applied to area oil and gas production facilities, development of wind and renewable energy sources for large scale electrical power generation, and continued conversion of fossil fuel burning to unconventional fuels and fuel hybrids. Within the Denver, Fort Collins, Greeley, and Longmont criteria pollutant attainment/maintenance areas, 2035 design year total CO emissions for the build alternatives would be well below local attainment/maintenance plan emissions budgets, although slightly above No-Action levels because of the increase in VMT. • Any incremental emissions impacts to air quality from the build alternatives would be small compared to current pollutant emissions levels. Additionally, transit facilities and service would not contribute to direct air quality impacts and would act to reduce the growth of single occupancy vehicle use, lowering vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic emissions for the region overall. The issue of global climate change is an important national and global concern that is being addressed in several ways by the Federal government. The transportation sector is the second largest source of total greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the U.S., and the greatest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions—the predominant GHG. In 2004, the transportation sector was responsible for 31 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. The principal anthropogenic (human- made) source of carbon emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels, which account for approximately 80 percent of anthropogenic emissions of carbon worldwide. Almost all (98 percent) of transportation-sector emissions result from the consumption of petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, and residual fuel. Recognizing this concern, FHWA is working with other modal administrations through the DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting to develop strategies to reduce transportation's contribution to greenhouse gases - particularly CO2 emissions - and to assess the risks to transportation systems and services from climate changes. There are also several programs underway in Colorado to address transportation GHGs. The Governor's Climate Action Plan, adopted in November 2007, includes measures to adopt vehicle CO2 emissions standards and to reduce vehicle travel through transit, flex time, • telecommuting, ridesharing, and broadband communications. CDOT issued a Policy Directive on Air Quality in May 2009. This Policy Directive was developed with input from a number of Cumulative Impacts 3.26-32 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. agencies, including the CDPHE, the EPA, FHWA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), RTD, and the Denver Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC). This Policy Directive addresses unregulated MSATs and GHG produced from Colorado's state highways, interstates, and construction activities. As part of CDOT's commitment to addressing MSATs and GHGs, some of CDOT's program- wide activities include: 1. Developing truck routes/restrictions with the goal of limiting truck traffic in proximity to facilities, including schools, with sensitive receptor populations. 2. Continue researching pavement durability opportunities with the goal of reducing the frequency of resurfacing and/or reconstruction projects. 3. Developing air quality educational materials, specific to transportation issues, for citizens, elected officials, and schools. 4. Offering outreach to communities to integrate land use and transportation decisions to reduce growth in VMT, such as smart growth techniques, buffer zones, transit-oriented development, walkable communities, access management plans, etc. 5. Committing to research additional concrete additives that would reduce the demand for cement. 6. Expanding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts statewide to better utilize • the existing transportation mobility network. 7. Continuing to diversify the CDOT fleet by retrofitting diesel vehicles, specifying the types of vehicles and equipment contractors may use, purchasing low-emission vehicles, such as hybrids, and purchasing cleaner burning fuels through bidding incentives where feasible. Incentivizing is the likely vehicle for this. 8. Exploring congestion and/or right-lane-only restrictions for motor carriers. 9. Funding truck parking electrification (note: mostly via exploring external grant opportunities) 10. Researching additional ways to improve freight movement and efficiency statewide. 11.Committing to incorporating ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) for non-road equipment statewide— likely using incentives during bidding. 12. Developing a low- Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emitting tree landscaping specification. Section 3.21 Energy contains a calculation of carbon dioxide produced by the various alternatives. Table 3.21-3 Daily Co2 Production by Alternative shows that Package A results in CO2 production that is 0.8 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, Package B CO2 production is 0.4 percent higher, and the Preferred Alternative CO2 production is 0.9 percent higher. Over time, it would be expected that the rail components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption because more trains • could be easily added. The TELs in Package B and the Preferred Alternative would eventually Cumulative Impacts 3.26-33 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • fill up with buses and carpoolers. Transit stations would, over time, serve as a stimulus to transit-oriented development, which would potentially reduce energy consumption due to mixed use and higher density development. In addition, all three build packages contain other energy reducing components such as TDM and ITS programs, along with additional carpool lots to encourage carpooling. The relationship of current and projected Colorado highway emissions to total global CO2 emissions is presented in the table below. Colorado highway emissions are expected to increase by 4.7 percent between now and 2035. The benefits of the fuel economy and renewable fuels programs in the 2007 Energy Bill are offset by growth in VMT; the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan predicts that Colorado VMT will double between 2000 and 2035. Table 3.26-6 also illustrates the size of the project corridor relative to total Colorado travel activity. Table 3.26-6 Annual CO2 Emissions Comparison Global CO2 Colorado highway Projected Colorado Colorado Project corridor emissions, 2005, CO2 emissions, 2035 highway CO2 highway CO2 VMT, MMT1 2005, MMT' emissions, MMT1 emissions, % of statewide of global total VMT(2001) (2005) 27,700 29.9 31.3 0.108 22 1MMT...Million metric tons Source:EIA, International Energy Outlook 2007 • 3.26.3.6 HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND DISTRICTS In the early 20th century, most of the regional study area was used for agricultural purposes. Individual farmsteads were usually one or two quarter sections of land (160 or 320 acres). As the automobile and tractor started replacing the horse and carriage, roads were built. Road access facilitated additional development. Much of the new development was auto-related with service stations and restaurants built to serve the motoring public. Many small settlements were established throughout the region, many serving as supply and social centers as well as produce shipping points for dispersed farms. The late 1960s brought more residential development, with the development of large-scale subdivisions beginning in the 1980s. These residential developments have put pressure on many of the country roads that were never envisioned to carry the amount of traffic generated by large-scale development. The small downtowns of many of the historic settlements are now experiencing renewed activity as a result of development of nearby residential subdivisions. As land becomes more valuable for development, farmers are increasingly pressured to sell or develop their land. Under the No-Action Alternative, the conversion of the remaining historic farmsteads into urban development would continue in accordance with local development plans. Traffic and congestion within the regional study area would continue to increase and would result in an increase in noise, air emissions, and visual obstructions affecting historic properties and districts. Planned growth within the 1-25 corridor would result in more traffic through some • historically smaller communities. Cumulative Impacts 3.26-34 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Implementation of Package A would result in adverse impacts to Louden Ditch (5LR.8930), the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad - Denver & Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969/5BF.130), and four historic structures - Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245), the Colorado & Southern / BNSF Depot (5BL.1244), the Hingley Farm (5WL.5263), and the Jillson Farm (5WL.6564). Construction of the commuter rail components (A-T1 and A-T2) would support municipal plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase overall density and footprint of urban centers along the BNSF rail line. While the conversion of historic properties and farmsteads would continue, it would likely occur more slowly in areas adjacent to the BNSF rail line. The commuter rail component also would result in additional trains within the BNSF corridor. This would alter the current character of the railroad from a freight line to a combination passenger/freight line service. Implementation of Package B would result in adverse impacts to Louden Ditch (5LR.8930). The conversion of the remaining farmsteads into urban and subdivision development would continue in accordance with local development plans. Increasing traffic and congestion within the regional study area would continue and would result in an increase in noise, air emissions, and visual obstructions for historic properties and districts. This impact would not affect the district's and property's eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in adverse impacts to Louden Ditch (5LR.8930), the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad - Denver& Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969/5BF.130), and two historic structures - the Hingley Farm (5WL.5263) and the Jillson Farm (5WL.6564). Indirect effects associated with this alternative would be • similar to those described under Package A. As discussed in Section 4.2.4 Transportation Impacts, Effects on Arterials, the increased traffic on 1-25 with the build alternatives would reduce traffic on the roadways parallel to 1-25 compared to the No-Action Alternative. Overall, the magnitude of this effect on arterials would be relatively small, as the changes are spread among many individual roads. The effect on peak-hour arterial conditions would not be notable. This indicates that traffic within historic districts in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont would not increase as a result of the build alternatives. Cumulative impacts to historic properties and districts have occurred and will continue to occur in the regional study area due to the conversion of agricultural lands and farmsteads to urban land uses and limited local historic preservation regulations. Planned transportation and development actions will, over time, result in the additional loss of historic properties and will alter the historic character of small farming communities. These impacts will occur regardless of whether or not a build alternative is implemented. The construction of a build alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to historic resources in comparison to what is already anticipated through land development projects and other roadway improvements. For reasonably foreseeable future projects that are federally funded or require a federal action, federal legislation protects historic resources [National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act] and requires that adverse effects be mitigated. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.26.4 Conclusion Environmental impacts from the build alternatives, when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in additional cumulative impacts to environmental resources of concern. However, the majority of these cumulative impacts are a result of the growth and development already expected to occur in the regional study area, with or without any transportation improvements. The construction of a build package would not change the overall cumulative impacts noticeably. The exception is for Package A and the Preferred Alternative, where additional barriers at wildlife crossing sites would result in impacts to wildlife. However, these impacts can be minimized by limiting fencing in areas where substantial impacts would occur or by using wildlife friendly fencing that large mammals can easily cross. In other areas, culverts and bridges could be used to facilitate wildlife movement (see Section 3.12 Wildlife). To avoid additional impacts to the identified resources of concern, local authorities and planning entities must continue to review and scrutinize development proposals to ensure that new development is consistent with local area planning goals. One way local planning jurisdictions can reduce environmental impacts is through the implementation of smart growth initiatives. These initiatives can provide economic, social, and environmental benefits to a community. Nearly every community in the regional study area incorporates smart growth principles into their comprehensive/land use plans. Of 29 planning documents that were reviewed for smart growth principles, 65 percent included eight to ten of the smart growth principles. The next step is for local jurisdictions to strictly enforce these principles through their development review process. • Local authorities and planning entities should also require appropriate avoidance or mitigation as part of any new development project. Resources most at risk that could be protected are riparian areas, floodplain areas, historic properties, and wildlife habitat areas. For transportation projects, CDOT will ensure that all best management practices and mitigation measures specified in this Final EIS are followed appropriately. • Cumulative Impacts 3.26-36 • NORTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.27 Permits Required • • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.27 PERMITS REQUIRED Transportation projects must comply with a wide range of federal and state What's in Section 3.27? environmental laws and regulations, 3.27 Permits Required permits, reviews, notifications, 3.27.1 Water Quality/Water Resources consultations, and other approvals. This 3.27.1.1 Colorado Discharge Permit section summarizes the permits that may be System (CDPS) potentially applicable to regulated project 3.27.1.2 Section 404 Permit 3.27.1.3 Section 402 Permit activities. It is not an all-inclusive list nor 3.27.1.4 Section 401 Water Quality does it include reviews, consultations, and Certification other types of approval that do not involve 3.27.1.5 Floodplain Permits granting or denial of a permit. The following 3.27.2 Air Quality permits and coordination activities may be 3.27.2.1 Stationary Source Permitting and required to support the construction of the Air Pollutions Emissions Notice proposed build packages, including the Requirements 3.27.2.2 Other Air Quality Permits Preferred Alternative. 3.27.3 Biological Resources 3.27.3.1 Senate Bill (SB)40 Certification 3.27.1 Water 3.273.2 Prairie Dog Relocation Permit Quality/Water 3.27.4 Access Resources 3.27.4.1 State Access Permit 3.27.4.2 Construction Access Permit 3.27.1.1 COLORADO DISCHARGE 3.27.5 Other Local Permits • PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) A Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) permit is required by State and Federal regulations for stormwater discharged from any construction activity that disturbs at least one acre of land. This discharge permit is required to ensure the quality of stormwater runoff from the construction site. Under CDPS permit stipulations, a site-specific stormwater management plan would be prepared that outlines in detail specific best management practices (BMPs) for inclusion in project plans and implementation in the field. Included in the stormwater management plan are such aspects as BMP locations, turbidity and monitoring requirements, seed mix, concrete wash-out provisions, and other relevant information. Permits would be obtained from Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE's) Water Quality Control Division. 3.27.1.2 SECTION 404 PERMIT A Section 404 permit, which is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), is required whenever construction projects or maintenance activities require filling that would occur below the ordinary high water line in any body of water considered a water of the U.S. (navigable waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands; all tributaries to navigable waters and adjacent wetlands; interstate waters and their tributaries and adjacent wetlands). An individual permit is required if an excess of 0.5 acre or 300 linear feet of waterway are to be filled; a nationwide permit is required where lesser amounts of waterway are to be filled. This project is being accomplished under a merger agreement with the USAGE. A Section • 404 permit application has been prepared in conjunction with this Final EIS. Permits Required 3.27-1 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 3.27.1.3 SECTION 402 PERMIT A Section 402 permit is required for dewatering of construction areas, if necessary. The following activities would likely require a Section 402 permit: ► Construction dewatering operations associated with utility excavation, bridge pier installation, foundation or trench digging, or other subsurface activities ► If discharge from a point source is expected to occur due to vehicle washing, or from industrial discharges. A Section 402 permit would be obtained from CDPHE's Water Quality Control Division. 3.27.1.4 SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required in conjunction with an Individual 404 Permit (dredge and fill permit)for any transportation construction project or maintenance activity where work occurs below the ordinary high-water line or adjacent to wetlands. As part of its 401 Certification, Regulation No. 82 states that CDOT is required to notify the CDPHE and the owners and operators of municipal and domestic water treatment intakes or diversions downstream if potential impacts to nearby receiving waters may occur during construction, e.g., when blasting occurs near receiving streams. Unless specified by the Water Quality Control Division of CDPHE, in-stream turbidity monitoring is not typically required. The 401 Certification must be obtained from the Water Quality Control Division of the CDPHE. 3.27.1.5 FLOODPLAIN PERMITS • Floodplain permits, including a floodplain development permit, Conditional Letter of Map Revision, and Letter of Map Revision, is required for any floodplain encroachment. 3.27.2 Air Quality 3.27.2.1 STATIONARY SOURCE PERMITTING AND AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS NOTICE REQUIREMENTS A stationary source permit and Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN) requirements stipulate that a construction permit must be obtained from CDPHE for any and all emissions associated with construction activities, including operations of portable sources. CDOT will submit an APEN to CDPHE's Air Pollution Control Division if more than 25 acres of land would be impacted and/or project construction would last longer than six months. CDPHE will respond whether or not a permit would be required prior to commencing construction. 3.27.2.2 OTHER AIR QUALITY PERMITS A portable source construction permit would likely need to be obtained from CDPHE for the operation of portable sources (e.g. asphalt plants, generators, rock crushers). • Permits Required 3.27-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. A fugitive dust permit and bridge demolition permit will be required for construction projects. Additionally, an asbestos abatement permit from the CDPHE would also be required for demolition of structures that potentially have friable asbestos containing material (see Section 3.17 Hazardous Materials). 3.27.3 Biological Resources 3.27.3.1 SENATE BILL (SB) 40 CERTIFICATION Senate Bill (SB) 40 certification would be required by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) for the crossing of streams or adjacent stream banks to avoid adverse effects to waterways, stream banks, or associated tributaries. This legislation is designed to protect fishing waters and to recognize the importance of the entire stream ecosystem, including wetland and riparian areas. A SB 40 wildlife certification application would need to be submitted to CDOW 60 days before construction begins. Based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by CDOW and CDOT in 2004, it was established that all future transportation, construction, and maintenance activities that satisfy the requirements for use of the Programmatic SB 40 Wildlife Certification as described in the Guidelines of the MOU may be taken without written certification from CDOW. 3.27.3.2 PRAIRIE DOG RELOCATION PERMIT • A prairie dog relocation permit, issued by CDOW, will be required for the relocation, transportation, or donation of any prairie dog(s) or colonies that may be affected by project activities. Local permits may also be needed for this activity. 3.27.4 Access 3.27.4.1 STATE ACCESS PERMIT A state Access Permit, issued by CDOT, would be required for all requests for new or modified access to all state highway roadways. Owners of any existing accesses adversely affected by the project would be notified of the proposed changes. 3.27.4.2 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PERMIT Construction access permits would likely be required for temporary access needs outside the project limits. 3.27.5 Other Local Permits Other local permits would likely be required by cities and counties as needed, such as construction, grading, erosion control, utility, or survey permits either prior to the beginning or during construction phases. • Permits Required 3.27-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Permits Required 3.27.4 • NORTH I-25 PM EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts • • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 3.28 SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS This section summarizes the social and environmental consequences that would result from the No-Action Alternative and the three build packages (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative). Measures to mitigate these consequences are summarized in Section 3.29 Mitigation Summary. This section focuses on impacts to the social and environmental resources discussed earlier in this chapter. Transportation improvements and impacts are presented in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. • • Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts 3.28-1 co C P C a) -o 46 Ea) CO O 3 O E C5 • c a Z.u- J N E a) O U 2 C3 a) t0 C ° co .L.. C °. N Q -0 N as o a O m > N a T N N Y d a) C a) L C co 0 Ti 00 'U C N O O W ≥ 'C a) O) a) Oof ° V c CO C J U ° 0 >%— J '° C > O O 0 >, N J J _07. -OMEN o y 'o, E _ h 0 NLO. a a .. 3 22 o Q O 0 CO O C C U 0 3 p N O N O a) _ ° N O p )f'1 . - o0o wa ° co � NOc c N W 3ooc ° En 5acp ° N 0L- ...-° oo To -C '5caa) .� c,.. Q � � c w3 � T EE mw o a) a o a E o w0 a o ' C N N a) :; a.0 N N g Y N N a „ - L j O N OI °'m .L. W ° N C N d J y°-_ ` N J 0 L L ° D O) N N E a a) y N > ` LN a o. e E 'yO8c Es_ dwEC oCoN J -- c .c ° JNo $ z -- o °? aC) o o C 0 a0) 7 0 - a N `0 0 a°) a) 00 3 a) o 'O a) o UEoa0 U2E LLC3m � ccd m � Nc $ Z2 -Oc a) En 0 C N O E N '@ c t 0 o - a) 0 OO J Y L 0 N V N 3 o O 5 > un ° O N CO a d E 3 N NM 0.3 ‘0 a > o) ° O o L = O O O y co Q 41 J ... U C O) O C .x a) ° N C p C O C o N O J a) N LO (V `°)m ≥ a coH ° po N d p) c!),2 o N > t0i, = p U 00 N O N co C ca) E O5O. -00 .c oc EcN E CN C y O E C a) C O D U 0030 N N ~ w > a .- C 4.7.C Ec0i asa o Ts 2 ° O ° c°oo E5E A C N • CO co -O C N U M O N .N-. O1.' a O C 3 L .N 6 E N .C. c o 2. V J O U -p O {0 a) L O m la c m ° s E cLc -pE E ICI a) E 2 0 N a a) D; (7) a° E ° O N E ca J — d O p y > H O O Y 0 0 0 O a) ..' 'O 'K E ;� a r.. O p o c N a a, d 'C Co � 0o -o ° cj0 000a`, H1 (0 LL ° O` U, U > i a 00 a) 3 co 'C 0 L ≤ 3 N 0> N 05 _c 0 C N1a J C EE g eC d O �0 L N O C O ._ 0 C co a) °) 5 co dan > 5 cc 0) -O E N N a J N d O)O a N ' 0 • I D co N .° o IS 0 m c E o 3 c V-, oL5 '15 O U a) 03 U 0 0 a C C a C T L .J. C ? o a o L_ o -O d 'o,m ≥' 5 5 C ca .O N y O1 c a) o C N c O)L y w U F ` j a) o f0 �[ c p > 3 p N O r CA '0f" C O " t0 'O j O 'O E C L .L- C a N C O CO 2 a CU O O C O O) ° N N 'NO O 2O N C O) 3 a y N c U > "O -° N ° N C y 'O a) C > N d a, C W J 0 a C N N d C cos- C (0 to a N c a y C U .L.. N E CO c ck C 3 C C -p E O N N A N O)C . EM N O N O it o N O Y O a) a' ' N ° E a- N N (6 `a N M 2 L T J O1 N O "O .0 L O O C E (0 ` J N N C CU NU d N NL >> = 0 Eo '-. NCTJ CLOOE ° • O O)'C > 0 a) J ._ O > J C w 'O O C O V f0 O1-O 'co � C72m° � 0a° 3m IV 2Oav) 2 0ma `Nw � N _ .c- cm w co a c a) a J E L Y Y CD J O @ CD A ≥ ) 3 0 .� cE oam m3 c v, m = U a) C N 'y Q C C O N C >'Pd y co t O > a) a) a) 00 — C C co > C r Cy C o w a ) m 0 ' p oQ 0C Wa E oa y a E r cuC oaE m ` m m lf1 l v a)N o : ma )n N c3 ,cm aai a1° o) aQ of 'oo n4 W d a C ° c ° Iaoi ) it a3,-. a 'c° a E d - o c aa)) ° o v, d c a Q m t a o ° E m c E 1 O N Q$ o N L To N U > > N m O N N U N > N Q O O y a a 0 N C J' J X y_ E E ?) Y d p. .° N a) ° a) ° y J Z _ > a) cJi aoi ° c c � c o) 0 0 co a) a) Z0 c a s $ c a QE . CC o < - -c Co0co) Qa m £ o Lux, Em E .2a L C ° tn. L a) U m 0 >, 3 c c — a 3 vima yob -o C >' O a) 0m CO 0 a u, o c - m a °) a s a) °) o a0 m E m :Iraa) o 'y 4 C E j p N . N E E )0 C C CO ooV ac) Ea) ano c -° E N .o a c cai .Y > J - C C a O) ° U a ° :o C C N o N a) a) a) c.7) a) w c y f0 O W co a) C d .ci 2 co o w ` O ` o W — 0 a cc c) CAC p E m .) v a�Q ° y m ° - ')n 05 a°) af) EEom oo to a E3 ° CC• °000 o52N r0- 0 aa) $C ° L '° Era, CO � m o aacmc � y ... a mm ° r, E )° aa3) aa) a) ao E Cel °) m N - o)� aci 0402w °) c = — Z..Ecymc 'm u O a) y o a) m a) N C a c .0 co a) Y ° E E C O N (DM — " a a) 'O 0) N 000 = 0 0 Ca 017 C N M N Ep a) -C1 j cat N O ~ Oa C • CQa o > PE H m and ° OEa �' ° a vM ti o co C Y ` ai O V Z CO p .p. C Cu c 0 a O y yL J � NfN oa CL o ;` L N 0 O u '3 ° O m E c U C a � 0 D c >' m m ro a cf � aoo CO-- a? y a >. aa) CD CO c ) o E ELL Q 1-13 N U N y y ° J N',Et c° °- )°0 co co a 0 J ° a Tu up. ✓ N w o :O > �. E y O LJ V) a) o ow O o N J N " m y x W e u) -° E > ° a) I'M CO t .: E >, m0 c oy of M 0 Cu 'O a) C E O a v;i? .f ` a) w C O , '- o E C a •'3 co U J °) co a3 L C V O U 0 C y -Jp Ti) L N a) a r a --I a3 0 LO 5 >c co3 cdho vd ° o, -8 o) in E3 c 0 cm om c -oPc ,-, c o ... a, 5a < o . m C 0e o o '� 0 wwym (0Jc alCC a) E mE ° a co N O) U) O N N C c c O a) co a) N a) ° m C m a) a) a) a) u yY `� m v Lac ° cE °a `° - Coo das of orn o > )Oi -0 N )U C i_ N N - .= N X u cp N ° > O - a CO N Ep a O a N A Q a. =o a) Q E w 0 J i- y@ d E ma_ ct o _ af) - =o w O a> Q t, N a m d J J u) 5y E No C O T 0 C 03 C d co J .— a) Y CA Cu` w N cn " a � o3 of E m Cu EN N Q oEy , . To- m o -a o) a) f COc E a) = 0 > = m 0 c C IC W I% O C O C 0 a Cu J C � .m C C a) a `1: 000 p ) O C 7 al cp N U .- c Oo E N 0L a 0 O Y C 00 Q _ p Cu a) ° ` L y p • • o m � ° a) N C @ a) rn ` ° C c a IL Q M z O O N ... a) ° ° N •S)to � 'N C C -J F- C Z ≤ ❑ o J a- a ,- .1.15 a° E a E . . . a H .L. c Ill -�o CO O 3O ° CO S o f m co a Cu `o c 3 3 0 _ : c C V c° .c J c -O - 5 3O .L°. .N.. L ° N > E N = a J .0 N ,�` nE5C0L.. °ac `° 3° .c ; a)76; Cu -oy. °a« oa) ya) in 2 < ) g 'oaoE C 2 ® mac`) 0 ; o= � - Co N W m •o 0 o o ° c m C aQ �°) m o aQ 3 E a� w 5 °' E c o—is- • w co a) 'c° 0 _a cEm_cc° cc ED � o@cr°noon H o : E E c ° c o o ° Y ° ° o ° o a a cvo -ao � a « ao EL ° a� O E w ° 20 no E O o ° . J C ° O)Lc, N U a N Q N J N o O O L' ° 5mchEoEm oc°) a0 ° ` E a"i r E °n -° o -a.-a) Z _ > > E ° oc J '- > E caB E w < 2N .L.. U ,- 5J S c° w NC N U m .L5 U ca aaE) 5 oa N N m N y 0 c ai c o) Cm > 3N ° L O c Cu N a3 U O O 'O 3 7 O C) co O •= N c -O C ° Oa) 22C ° d ° c ° a) E acca 0m o c E 2 co 22 3 o co m O En E o ° ° m C a) N t c ° S S c a.. 3 U 0)co 3+ ° ' O C O 3 t CO Y '� N 3 c C •.� E J O .2 m a" co c - .°-. •o O)C E 'C T .N..cacti O O ° c '@ c ° > C a) c `' O 'CO O a .-. :: c c E mm J ° m J a aY — c c o ..- a 3 mj N o a� co c ° 0 O as o o E c c c o 3 ° Dana o caw '° c E@ ° 'o ° cN/) J tm ccoEo ° ccNa EEE2' ccac) @ mo .. o. t . 0 .-)e0 -e" m N •Ccyc o ° rJnE ° ° m ° EEC ° c o «? � ,≥ mcE " � m E O N •C `1 t O ° a y U O) .°. >.'O N O .. N O U . C a) ° ° CO- u '—'-- Cu —O s_ V mE EdE ° c Cua .c ° °.-) m 003 ° oo � o cc c ° Noo0NPacmLcouo. @rococ ° ° otom ° c ow - 3 Q ° � 5o ° ma u� ° oho HEm ° `m .E � to .O 1:3 at • c m C ;O a a N N '° N C C o m e a ` ai 3 3 ` ° . V O o ® o m o .c a e ° L c o o ° ° ° E y R. co c° o .O .2 oo op n as ` � a>i3o .c Too E E QE -o .° mcJmoo Nc vi o " ¢ a 3 -.y 0 0 ° c o co c E �C c a 2 m a7 c — 3 a) o v> .a. 0) U c ° C .C ° E M L a z ° C -O O) c D o c Ca> O ,— a, O o _ L E m ° Q CO a a c a ° a E '"" m c b 1 co) 1 X - E r O CO ° ` N .°.. EE O y d O C m •o c ° - c) o �O N a L Q o -° ° 'co, a) c c E a) N O ° N o O C J a) >, ° 0 N a 171 C Eel ° a _caEa) LLBa" cr ° ° ccoom gac) 2a v ° dEc 1° aai -o occ ,• EE5oo °lc m °a a°) ' ° '> > occyE !> JrE ° aE a 'o. EoC la C X o 'C O a) ° N O 00 co ox w C 5 a) w `a) On a '> U c t $ as o w o) w O N N N y a no 3c2 to E. a co CD ≥ >,y N -o _co o a.) J ° O ° C a) Z E c u3 ° a°) cioc ° o � 2c ≥ Eac) y .. .c oc ° a) .a) o ao o m a _ o Q '° o y ' J ° Co NI c ) -°o_ ° J 3c°n3oc ? oQ a .. W "' O ..... U N cO .0 O 'O '° E ' ° C a c U N ..L.. 7 N v 0) t � cc c a no 3 Saco '0) -° a� m a' o ° c°i 3 o m ° N E m ° c y c o > iI Q a Z > > E c .- - - =$ 00E -00b a a a e z`. 0 C0 ° ar o _ N b w42 0oa5 > °cc3Em FL- c3co F-� a) • L co N -O w CD .O -O 'O C al 1] N t p O a O J a) m _ > 0 -0m a 3omU 3 °� cc o A E o ._ E m ` o c N V m E y° d Ec -0c v NY ° ocmi > O 0o c mJc 3a) v o In q V '0NcN O' 0 0amm C CD Em to ≤ UaEN al• ao E N E m 3 0 E - o I ILI t my � E � co � mv 2m Li d well DI— o m . m " rn3 c 0 coay E . o N c a F4 -° ° E c ° EmcmC coo .2 mac mo � a o so a y 3 - T T o ° � -O m ° tb m 4- a -O -O m :N o -o a) 3 o .- m y ca m Z Xm °' oo mE -cEsoara) a)o - aoom W _E a u ca — N a) ow o (Dn a 2 a `o 3 m O t O o O t L U _ J C >O >, 3 3a o CO — 3 a) a) m o coY Y C- U N m V -50L0. 0 a) n co N O N a ▪ c m ° 0 j m +' occoo E C coca E u U co o m N a � c a. 00 x ac) 0 • ,^ 0 — a U m to v in C m • OD `y C SI N C CSI ai OD c N Yco E c m o V.r L N c O a) > m o U .. C E o y > o E N .- m O 03 n > - m E V ▪va n. ai ri �° a) a omcE m m J C La C ._ UO N E r :� m N c m C P c > 'U '- E Cu, +~+ 0) y r ,m, V 'U p m y aa)) E .. o c owo c 2 N Vla co oYii U N C C1-O '� N m j� C C 3 a N .C_� p y r m U O L a) .o .V N .— J C E C J 'C m C 't d /o j o .. a NL C F7e E3 mmcam ccoo ccooE -O 1r aoO 0E �CD -- 'O o < E = ° oc ` -o N :- c °) a) o Eoacomom ci C .5 a) Y C U m C 0 E -o N m m E c D O O O'y C N 4-'u . wa r2oa) -oE > c .'c > .'. N � 'a CV w V d Y C o in ,_ a_ 3 o a) O o o u o N N y Ny -o U a) c iii dm n a o N G3 L a eo as C C a C (` U p 'V -O ON •,,,,,* 000_ � OU .L.. E co m : Ed •avE � Hccooawmaa' w 0 t et > co 7 a) O a (0 N c W N 0 N 7 ro U clt c 7 N 0 LL• a M Z aJ .L1 ea F* w _ .. o o co O • 3 c ID o >, °� -o B ° a) -- 0 O ct m > -0 U 0) .0 c N a1 , C a) J • J c Z. O C � � y aim oo .N �° °3 Doti m mo � a) ro c a co c ≥ 0 O y E C j 0 0 > m 2 a) " O a Y 0.° 173 ° m :� N m 3 oof ° ° o � '@ Ea p c N m 'c E 0. E ` c . O a> C < N r CO o d Of 2 U -° N E .O-« 0 0 •.0 o xa p ° j,c L° a a c‘, , CO O Y CO a) c c°0 O OI y r > m a) a 0 O 0 0 N P—I pi W m a N x > c U c > y a o aQ o CO C 0 c a l a c o a 2 `o co 0 0a c m ` - 2 C E as X CO c 0 o 0 ° r c aa)) m X w C w ° E co mac E 0- 0 - o � '� o c-° °- y m ° ° o a E a a) 41) co 0 'x �-c ono `0 ° 2 w � u ccv a O - ° T 0Yca ��Qj > a o ,_ a) a o a Z y d a c c a) w a) E 3 O o CO .7) 4 '- -O o .c a O O a) a) a) a) m p a) a) U O O O o 0 0o n a `) jr)> E C Q a N Oa E I- aa H ,.- ° m $ c a acta cn 3a aa)) 0 o ab a c w -o a n co O 73 N .na ov N .3 0 a u a o as C 3 CO I.= a C �„ .O-. O 0) .C 0 CO co CO O D `O-' E co 0- a, p c c 0 m J co co 0 c O d ,. co C w m co aa, :° ac) Co '5 co P °) m c` a2pm ca o y c 0 > 00 V) o Ox0 E N pE c 00 07 0 C_ CO .t-� U a O O nc ct r C CD C a 0 J CO CO O 0a .O C0 2O U - 0Eo ° 0O .0- 02 a a) O (0 CO O C V! C J O CI) ERN 0) a C a) 0 J. u) p p >. O 0- 0 - O 0 E o u) >" t O. C 'E m o o p N ° @a Tom Q °- N -°)° .3 'F)>< c a u caw a) E O H O) O ` •p O 0 C 0 p au a) a) yc0 d' N O r= m a r J 0 O .a,._) c O o a t U h a J y N r Ca] . a) > C d cvm 0 c'im aa)) 0o co .E ,,>. I- > om Ent C U Q a a Leta H a .. MO- ID a a' 6 0 o at.- cn c aa) c ,o • • ao CNI 0 C N S M O 0 o — o. _ a > ` C C a) co .c O U J U T a 0 -CCO a 'N a= o •a co N a) O CO W 3 0 a > " 3 000 3m0o-oac Z ra a ,n co aa)) a) c) o aaa) L d .N t 7c6 Cued y > Z..U-` ca C E E Q O p N xxt O E N 2 X 2 U d ° 0 E r` N ° O °-moot = "") 07 � 0 0 > CO. O .- y a cm ,.a as.- a c ., c0 u 0 0 V c ° E oO oc 0 EaNi cyo E ° pE °J 0 O . J m 2 'a 0) ° COc aDc > y c O2 15 Ec CO COD D C .. O U co, co a 01 > a > O O N O 0) "0 a tog c') cno '� :. 0 J cm 20E mcaa C 0o m 0 C J at a a >, .. a3 `o 2 N $ o E J E °3 oa a) 0 co o o $ E a u -EQ c wo a,12 Z` o oQ 2ccoo c0E `o t, - 1 a) a) 0 O 00 0c 0 p o 0 a ✓ a) y °p N- 6 a >, act t O C CV D o c O X c O 0 > o <D )n Edo E16 co) o0 c E as ° ° E c Q < O X ES69 1 I- 0 ma a � co cn .Ea CDoa" %c., w x o O a o _ c > J J 0) > p L O C a ° O CD C co U CO O a -c N r O 5 C p a >, -5 d c — 0 ) 0 uN) a OI p N N — C/D a) i N Cu) O)C c a) O Q N c CO 0 'y 0 0 0 f0 -C CO C Qc om CO .Eco0 N ° W 7 It •U a) m c 2 C N c ° L c 0 O) a0 Q O C a1 -p 0 J o >, O 0 co 7 N ° tin c � � mYL, E 0 • a Q M z -O X a O a y N -_ N U T .� O >� O CO O 3 no) U y _ j a > cco 3a sm aE .L. m° O fa is g co _O N 0@ 0 @ p 0 co C C C J O O 0 O)-0 C N 0 J 0 0 ivCD "O N N C Cu 01 -O J L@ .CCV C a) = C p o r C N Z J c 7 (a 'O N cN C (0 O U@ 0 0 _N N N (a O a @ O 0 o N V@ ._ -0 0 C 0 C 'W U 0 2 a) 0 -0 m 0 •.@. ro E T2 70 ooC .c al @ ac �� E � ? Yp � C0 3 'c ° aE ° a O wo ka2 0000 Cr Q 0c C U m � -o -o cc 0 p a o c o n.. as ....-... E E ,k '. 52 O20 In C/) f, 9 O -o N C : o a 0 JO Inc ()0 " E 0 o > ``� 0 . E 0 0 0 V m T N ` a N 0 0 N N O a (7 0 8o 0 ciao -o ,_ J @ 'C W Ecoc nm II E. c NEc ? cJ -o �- d - Jya �`oco cc o d O -6-7) OE G L@ C N O �`. -O @ N J U •C C@ ,° d Cu O r N a V .O @ O n V O co (tea C a 0 N N J _o @ N d co O .c '= C d J 0 j trio) 3 N J X y -2= Z'li O y 0 0 -° N/ > -0 U ,- 4 .c OJ O"� @ a s D'00 L N 0 d O J@ > O.t C a J 0 C J y 2 � m F- a) � Q `N-om `orm Z Z $ O3Q-o _ am .2o oa o :N c o o i.12 c—oT c • o a) @ 7 > O co N .0 � @ w ' N ca) c c > -0a) - Cu .0 O -O 0ea N O 0 0 0 N 0 y N O p d 1.) .2 J L co -o ` ... 0 U 0 X ? C in C.1 vii0c co 3a0i0 . O, C 0 u y � EmC ._ 0 ooEJyyo a cc . Yce ya yo0 ca ° c CL o...-• 0m vE ° - Jam ze oou C0 — 0 � ? 0o a wa -°yU oo cpaZ CL COO co' aN 3m � 0 u0 a>i 0m@o 2oa ca c ., co E m a 0 0 E h@ > c J '0 ... 0 J r J v 0@ cocN Ea WC '>,- QS C � cc lo c @ow cu@acio cc � to0 a En Ln �� ° � � a0o � 00 N o -p Cuca0v; @OmJc � E y N c0 -00 0 O '0000 O L L ca o > c �r J ° C r 0 .0 C@ C O-11_CO '_ @ a a N X N -0 ='a) O 0 0 O D co O) O Y .-. alO1ven c — Q(hEE p o oom > a: acing > @0o c 2N Fo@ Q '0@o) 0 ° A Z Zr O3 o--oEamm3 o .2Ce VP-- • Q c • Ti L O 'o '� 0 0 -0 ` ten C IM rri J c 0 t — C o 2 0 0 N Q 3 c a o Cu ° ° oa c d o o@ 0 0 I 'N @ O o N J '_ (j @ 80 00) J a 0 0 CO N 3 C .. a 0 C N V 0' O) 0' @ Cr) co 0'_ E C 0 C N@ J 0 . �ai. -O C CO m M 7 O L > o v) 0) a) 0 U yj U Z E y co O C 7 N C O N c -O LI 0 H co N w 5 > @ O)C to +, 0)tj IV y o Co 3 0 C C 0 v) @ U @• n 0 at -0 N o d o 0 O " •c Nad x., () N 0@ co 0 l0 .N. .o @ 0 N a o E p C N > a) -O N ≥ O C O .4 @ O O U c o o o C C E N O N N 0` to J r v 0 .o a) c g . a 0 c ° a@coo > z ° ao ciE 0 >, g Emy ao EcoEa •> m � � aC � > crnme � oE5a) 8 Uc2 ocaN � mmo� E m 'ON ce '- = mm@Q c � opv � @ @ C U :0 C d 0 15, T (0j N o V @ 22 4 U .- o O 0 g c -0 0 0 • - y -C it .O C it .0 0. a J n C o/) 0 0 U 0 V " a w a) .- OC J J O co U i. P)(h N (o - 0 0 0@ 0 O O` t N J a 0 0 O 0 O) 0 2N H re) N Q 'O 3L ... Z Z .L... Ono- 0) E 3a CO a o tot m O 0 o N E C E 0 O m o p . .N o c N 'E o 0 4 '0 a— 7 d 00 @ aUm '_' E2 � c NO0 ao p V] Q as o 2 � a °6 "aTi a ... 00ay � @c W y O 0' C CO > @ C co— C N U CO 0) OD 1.5 0 `o Cu 7 3 N C@ 0 N 0@ 0` CC O d C N 0 C L o N .0., a N 0 j .J. C ° -Ti • LL a M z '° J 0 E ► 0 C c J C .N. C O J a 0 p N V C@ = .co C U 0 00 0 O. Z o Ouo. m2Na um� a) Z F O C a> ° O L • c >` ° Cu O O J « 0) CD O mot aci ai E w CO a a E o co a E o w c Cu m T a 2` a"a c o c _m .c mw E ru o0 ) E .C m o 3a > o c o ≥ E O O a o W O. 0'o) co co o -0 8 m a�i -CO o L .X C O C co y r o E E C C a a > C m '3 a) co C a E Q or � ' � 'o y01N � a' ea • 8Na � 0 N H 16:_ d r -0 .C •0 0 J > a) co 3 V " N v O N-N0 d Et) c � W t -lo - J3a)) c ° h " cm a- rm > ≥ L o3 ° o o o w a? c ° OE ° 3ac° Oa E " u' aocc I- cu) > < CD co :O en _ 72 -- E JNEdcO J oen1- Thai TO O: E c o a _Jo N m °� m d y O u) > ≥ O 0 N J a m Cu L 0) 0 E 3 'O >. @ CO w Cu a) C ` 0 0 O .� 0 .� O) O a eU a) 0 > p 0 3 O A D ¢ E sir E LL > 2 E ooI- E E `) -o ° P. T O co N O co co C O Ufa 2Y0) E3 'E w o m -o E 0t cm eri m 4 ° -0 .2 0 05 E m 3 -o C a) `o m c $ CO 0 0 a 0 0 V O N C N E a a) cu0EE � a) a`) a) ° Xa E m UU ' eri omx ≥ @ � yp > Cx LOCO ° 0 .8-. O o 92 0 O o 3 ° c r N 0 .� CO CO CO y V a) ti d � L O C (O 00. 0.0° C .t U N o 3 0) ) mac w co 3 0 E E t ° a 0 CC '- ° c co m ¢ n c Eaaco W m � 0 i)coo 0 E3 m ° 0o E IS O m ≥ ≥ om m 3 -DEp; 0a -0 , ,° E > u w O .O .O Ol ` c J O co L E J r a0. ° ¢ L c 0 0 ca • 7 C) O a 0 ep L 0 W ° a) a 0 C — 5 d ¢ E W2 mUH � m � y Z a ,• • Ti d � N 'as °art e) O 0 ai _ O 0 Uri ai O a a) " (p N V) >. O) O c O Z ZOO O O C '00 J O - O U N a C a° C u1 N J C mom n mEC OJ - CD 2« y EED m ._ ¢ C0 ea mOL � Nuc 'C• E ot_ ca; c3 -o5o E P. Z. > . E o c _ ao en . . o m z E 4 o ' 3 ow xc w3 -o `oo cc ° O a- 0 0 0 0 0 r0q a) E -o D D U C O m r° E L• h 0 Y fa C@ r X Q J O v a a E i= c O O Y 0 CO �' 0 0) O D CO 3 -0 0 0 0 , Or r 0 O PC a N of E a) @ ° 0 c ° u' cn c o 3 a - -p CD a, c 3 a C a a - J 0 -0 O L en q) a C � U �C :n cE -op E y w E m a3 o m 0 a) et Eco m o mL " en o coT °) 4 •y -`p in-- m ° O .>-. E E O ) r iE NJ > 3 L0J "0 ,° EO) O O O o O) L O • >� L J O co p ? Y c c w c v no .- o u) oa;at rno aoa p � o u+ m a w o >, a) o m _ID a r p RI J o o.0. 0 Cu 0 O O C Of �' o m o O co 2 3 Y a c ca 8 c 0 O a O o a) c o 0) 2 C L �a fa E n la N 0 'o) C 0 C Q e0 ° yN ° N D > C CO O `O y N c co r -0 a r CO C 0 0 0 E � O W N ...7. 0 -o -o J a= j 0 E ` - a = •0 • rof cp j 0 d N 3 ai E n u) U 800c). ° it < Cr; z ≥ > 0 oZ ° y00 5 C5 0 con aoalt) -a8 3O �N in @a° • ..-.0 =1" E 2 al •� C 0 0 O) 0 a d N J O E MI ¢ 922@ x � E aoo-0 > E ° a3 N • UO3 C a 0 a o ≥ _ O J c o N 3 co µ n N C -O O co Q m w 'O co C, U a) _ @ _ O) Q N _O t co lf) v) " '0 0 3 c o u W O A (V ` C 0 • O CO ~ w - N O N N o N N N N ± co a) a) E d 2 o co m O E rn 03 Z o . Ch r•-- CD . 0u o r co co C E. co a) N -c co 171 a C E a a o O (0 N c 3 a o CO o) ° c 9 as m — oQ 0 0 3 -N o 0 m D. C 0 c ti ca j0 O — Co G. Cu 22 °Ni o d E d o 3 -O co CO C) N 'ICS a a) a >>oo co aE c • C > O r N 3 C 0 y co C a. 'C w E N a) N ce co do o m -O 3 . o m J s 2 c V.r N. 3 y N N O £ (0 0 0) -0 -0 C 3 O .. "O 0 O Cu O C N cap t O O C .L. N N CO. C 2 C C O C O N ✓ co a 'tJD N -O C mom m N O CO O -C cot.. J Co 'O "O 'O C C a) `O b E O = y o j 0 0 CO co C C C N 'O 3 N = T N a c O o- E Cr ONNON � m � � =o u >, o) oNc = - Ja) . co E y - N To 3J � 3doo3cLi aTcN c �, C a) co — aJ, oz `om w' Y c o N .� co N O c0O fy, c V- .c CO N c O` _ _ c c o N C C a) V O RI -o o Z oCto . O 3 oa Cu o oa Y .:°— a) o t6 O N a) C _O d a N Co a O N co ` (6 O 'C CO O 3 J N 0 W = -a 0'N CDs- O C 3 - 73 N C) N 0J) N ≤ N C c V — " • u0EC >� PrEc_ °) Pc E tEJ3o J C O a) .fir o 0 m ® a (12 D .— co arm 030 •O1 � o >, c "O JV �, a) � cm y o) a) N T H O O V p N .O '� C n 3 cow O O J • c O ._ ,- co A. -Oco N O 0 O N o c 15 a) O a O (0 m J 1.2 m U Q O 0. m N CO C co NET, 0 c CU J CO 7 o a m a C N N 3 vo U U N C O O C d a) r U O O-T i. O CD c 0 N O x ` -0 2 a) O N o U O o) CO co -O o O O O a) C O` a) — ei O o Cao3 Z W (/) CV 0o O. < .n8N > 0tCuO. EZ 0 o O C C C 5 ≥ oa) 3c10 Et CD m o E 'o m am o E c J N o o a 5 ° °� ° ° `o > E aa, o Q 2 o 0 CON C T'O co O E "O N � W " 0 Co c co co O C c w a) " C 10 = ~ O C O 0 N O .- = O a) Q a) 3 N ',MaoO • LLQ7 Cl 0 O) ma- M z -O c a O � J OO 2 c b > ax) al -O t 8 > r. 3 F-� C3 �° — o .L°. m ° o . �' m E O Ntcl co c m 'NO c 7 ° N 'NO C N • o COED CC .- 5 CO '502as cm1- C 00 3Ov.a c r O ° _ N ..m--. f6 E N > N 2 C -00 N C a C 0 .- .0 Octm a) o � m ° C aNi Ec `o `oc - 00 5ay 'c- 00@i_ - (O N o > c6 ° ° 'l0 0 N O N x N E V a •'x '0 .J. d N', N L J U N o U o a p a N V1V� y ° m c o 0 75 o o U ° c m o C 0 .— >, "a.c c 0 (V I4 a ° m c`o C C O C O m m L L ° w O .0 N a s O. o) i--) V O C N Y G= W N 3 J o c -0 N a°.. -° .0 N CO rrr��rrr w a y.N. a j O C ° = o W (N O) N -0 a) ° U ° C m '0 o C N O ` N ° E0)t N N c C ° N E 3 E ° ° L L c � d .@ C U O) E c d 0) c — a) L ° 0 3 ° m E -p a ° .. "0 C U '(0 ` - r sN. D r N .% N O N O N N O O O E ',163 J N m J y N O N .J. ..°. ° m C L L O a m "0 ° y Z E. oo °' >oo a N o — R ° m > = 0 .,-. > Us_ r > ° CLE CLaaltaa)) iga3c Faa)) cva) aa)) O 0) = N 0 N C C ° 0) 3 J 0 u) ha'? N o L. . c a) - U x M O C ° j m ≤ m N = 0 c N in c N ° m m L 0 _ J c a) U E .- ° n m CO LO C a 3 m 3 c o a ° ° 0) O) o �N' ° w a) o o C ° N 0 a) 'a m N J o -p ° rInc ° � - � . 'v ad m o N m m T° � oco 20) TN — N Nm ° x 0Eao .x -0 Y o 0 - F E N .L. a) ,2 c N L C Uai C a^ N O C N �C J d m = C m m > c a N a m CO m ° .el ° O w o .-- m O so a U N Oct _ N m O -O °) 3 j ° T ` N N N V m r c a L T o ° O 00 N co( N 'JO N N L a m C m "O 6 .E5c " a ° C � ›. 4- m c • cruON) L a3iE5c ac) r0m R -O J N ca O .N. ° m m U .N .>-.. N ° ' N J U a 0 j ccoo 3 a) co J N 5 L` c J .L] a ° t -N° n r) O N H J o a J oE. C o °00 ° 2 Oar, of O ° E a) N0a � 0c- oa Luca c �_ � � c ° � `oo � . L z ._ ... t2 .E mo =o a2 ° CO I— a) 2N _CO • i O m m w �+ O y O N ° m a) r0 0 co N m c+f 0 IL o T C 0 J c°0 0 > C a) N — a) V -0 3 0 s. C _ a E a D o C0N ooN o V N CAE N N N N m N ° 0 -° J 0 'Np U 0 m ba. W � ° U co .c 4-) a) fs •c- � — 1-1 J E .O ° j 0 E E < O c ,CALE a) 0o 0Z co) c 3oam E o U 0)pi 0 o ` m a 0 E C 0 0 `0 `o o `) E 'o °-'O o o coc 0 CO ° x o ° ° ° m c ° N N L L ° E m x o a - i. U ~O N Ni > C a L2 o `0 2 N C ° N a J ° O m ° N "Cl d co C c c o c CO co as ? c Yo a) 3 N N C a C N Iti UTo P Y Ca o r .N. — m ° — = — E N O N ° N '°_ N .C CD p N N K- E c " N C E t°/1c C C C C 3 E n C N Q m ° ° d . co m C C N ° rel.) w r 0 U m ≥ N N N N N .J. to O G E E D O a 0 y 0 Q y a N U J co N C -M0 y d w N -co U 1.4 w ° > 0 E a) L o a ° a= L N . Q > c 0 0 > � > ° > a CC . � 3 =o m 3 CO a 0 .E H a) r0 co w0 ° 0 c co c c -0 ti m N2 L L C as U . _ C Coo V 0mE ° in 3Nm ma o a) ° 0 ° ° U co E ° N m J 00 E a) E ` a ° N C N ° 0 — 0 .°. 3c_ -0 ° o) 1- ° Eo) oE21oc ' ° a a)0 o 4 C ° 0 N 0 >, N m > c�j) a C• N — 0 ... "x J NN ° aamm -o > > Cuo -oEa_ = 0c � 0 C O ° J W N ° "O p0 'O a U N c t .O ' y O N' ` y a 0 C x 10 J H U `O LL N C N ° O x W -0 U .� C .0 '0 C N O C C o) 00 Q U CA O` C +_' N —c>' N N CAC C N c j O C fV O CA raj a .N a o .m. 2 C a) c O o N N o o O C o it Q M 2 ≤ � '°O H N S) .J. -O c 2 NCO m :.. "0 ° c m -0 -0 • ^� x o ° z 2 Jo d ° o a J o o E a J p w N U -0 O .C o ed W a 3 — Uw Ein 3 m 2 c > CE o) 3 o) a 5 0. CO F U • N a) "O Y p "0 .�. 'O YO E To O m .§ '" a a p o Cr E a -n p CO > y o a E a co r m a Cu > O O E y pip w O y CO . O N o N 0 CO y ' y � c Ua yp c3 yer � � m ny ..h a) 0 a O "O o. N N N its- y O CD CO p O' U p o p l` r 0 07 n (O ° p N Y V 'O p (p �//�� Q o f N 3 O p N CO pD O U ,- (13Cr O p E LOO (� i=.i `w y w r O O L OO U o O p O p U O 2 r@ (p NC UdU U0wNUU p0U0 ory a3 a am O.@ act O.` aE0) a-aaW a E � E Ew Et Eo Ec ?`5o E .ccC EpS° E0 O E o c on o -° 2 2? a 15co 0 0) o C E a) y a° a > >> > . . 0 3 > 0 > L > U Oo ON 0 - CO '°o 0 ° U0 sa o 042 a a) H .= C > - . CO/° r .�. 'O ip C J a) To N '@ a N to 0 N E o C 3 O` n L P L a V N O O O N N ° o = L o p gel L p p@ N N m . O O-a) o m EC pa � a� c3 yon 0a 41 U 0 C) co co N $ O L p co @ O .p. . a6. y c.) p@ U 0 CO n n i@ 0G9 -� co ro o . _ Em „I. pin p :? O M N 3 .0 O z N2 O) 3 ° N CO C O C co N co ° U r U U v cu coop a` O .ca) YO -O O y CL co O o C O p a ptoot) o m an co a m N co a m a p p C aN o) CuL o a0 E m E z E E � .1. .- 0) E o E ° — .50' Etc Ewa Ea) -o a) -° p O 0 o a U cut) . o O 5 5 0 t) O17 =o ,o O 'O ` 2 a 2 c ` 2? -cc-)O ` c E N ° 0 ` -O v • ._ 33 2 3c°i % oo 000m co 'o O2o O f 2 a D � � y T C co c- N ls Z 3 v N -p p ` M o jo V Cu - o C �O 0 a O O m il-I. U E m U coc = p0) 0 °a a p ° co E ° a co co o co > 0 . _ a o ro .2 p E Q" o O ° N O ° O O = -N E o -a '� % t-I Cl y 0 C - V U co m a y d N 0 N o A U U -0 O L p Cu O � L U o O CO N p Y ep Cu o. Cu y N O) co "o U U eA 1 U N 3 CO CD o o y 0 -� O 0 a 0 .p• f0 O W C O N tD .C 3 N N O Or- co 01 C O. N _ 7 5 .O V Q Y O ° U p ° N O U ° O �'" @@ m �c C .,- a .... a u o f o to o ow o pciLEI p '0 o_ft a aCt w CO CO a0) Cu y � Y ap p a) ro _ ._ E � ,a Ern Em E -°o �` mo, Ecc Etc Em a+ -o W .O Yp -0 O w ' p) c •- o U m c ° .L. p V > _ p 32 C U a U ED U c U .c co U p 0 o p O O 'o Oh- O mpp d2 E .� a0 `) 'ct p « C 2 'O Q 33 3C 3O � Od if) 42 Da � to Oco� bu. O o .0 w O a) t 0 F c tl c p O)eC > O U p E r O O ≤ a .co J E c o co E W .- ? `►p' 3 00o 0ofC gr Ch w0 0 Y0) o O Q C 0 N `_ c) .O CO r C 0 N o .° 0 a a N o W = H u c , 03 co -o3 (° 0) co Q U Z` ° a) c • ai co O LL Q m 2 E c cc .c o 'co °c)10 .c. t' cop0 p -po 5c co x o N E co) > N o H co U co J • m s0_-0 mm o O J E N N N i mN 3 m < 000 a C O > > N O)o a aL ro t C N N > )p O E -c c Q -CD° D O C ° U °. m o 3 00 O O C .. CO 7 mu) a w u) a) N v m a u o Qa ° '> m W O O U O a 2.. O U — m ac a) a) 0 E -O y E ,°o o E E m - a) CO E ami mao w y .0 y y (DI_ CD E 1 O > 0 >, c_ .t.. N O) O .t-. O) o r y m > m y u) a O .o V C O m Z _ O a.O t9 a) > N > N U F 2 .Eu) 0 I- rma co mica co 2 to co • C t) ..oT O O yj O N LO .O C3 Edo E a NCI 0 CO c � y � O)r' c Fs 22 ac U _a -OOm O L CO E y a) w o d ,-r_ as oaw > mY � t CO O J w L CI) U E y Y co co o y a U L u amp -amy ° oo EL O co > .- J ° U U O) N a m J To O 3 '— y J y O 0r0' ap TO jQ3r' o E r• O Cq O0 O N o N E pws" Co O)'> O)C 'O c u -o m yY y m O ` N J > U 'N U E .y. E A ° ° a) co m co O N co a � 23 � aaaa .c I) -o cm • N N A O N . d+ z r O .'r -O N -O N C ` e+i 0 N o C Q 0 a 0) m c 0 m ° E _ yam > Ot `utNo) `° ocN y ° V 'O N E O 0 g O .0 co m co O) O ° y O o) a) O ed > m ° Ny y m Emuilo p m EO Y y co O y OU °_ O E a .- o s c m E o) N N o a , y m - -O °i J c T w E E < a c :O -o N O m C m m O) O o y 3 'm N 'o N .° m Y y rr O E as J () C O Q _.•i„ , a U C J a) .2 3 J CO v x NJ ° 3wc o > `g " me E � o3a) a 3300 -o yas C N = O N O N _° -° X B 0 > .o m C i.'O d co amw m 'u) moN ° Ey N °o E NODm m0rr. Cl-i O` > ° as m co m y N . U •N 'L-' .0 °O o ' ° E CL ... C 'C OLa, EL, - o mtCO0 cy3 2 E2cEe G — •0 = E c a o 2w 3 c E E E ° ° = c mm c s} E c o �° yo c O. f? o c p a) r my t > a _ 00 a c O) m C :: vi `m O'g y co J J C O T m O m a > co co O 'p t 3 - ° ° m O) 0 A 23 > � 223cLi � 2m SE -O -o 'o HE °im ,_ CO � CMC o O 0 y E c° £ 1:1m tC > .C O E c O) m O E as E y O y O 02 O 0 J U C' CO CJ N L r '= 0 > O c ' m N > ° r r m N - a).c O N O 4 r 0 c m U U CO :) O U) N C T U -O 'O m D r/) W y 0 m = 1O aot ctY- OS 7 , t C � o o 3 u m m o N O ac N Z )ay ® it Nj Z .o of -OF- OZ ° E- Q.) • U C co opO 0 J 'O CO y C C A >. N V O - - N °U a ul c a) • - as a) r C O y J. a) m 'O O v , C 0 .C -0 a) o ca `� ir o l0 CO N V N o `° a a) N 3 0 s 3 U r U •y E -O a 0) L W in a N O U N y a ≥ ••••a' E . co U (0 N N Q L t 0' m m a C CV E 4 - vi mom — o Eo '5 «. c o O .m �.- y an C m N.O-'moo o = a) 00, 02u) oz - W o t ion D O) 'o) > o m � m _° YN — y 'oga '- o ,--, o, a) 0.a) _ G=-0 E .� 3 d o = 0 C a N N U1 L N.J. .O, m o U a Eaa)) Z „ c '5 'E 28m ` � o � rcm m ° � � ? o ° o O E u o J a o z JQ yo m 3r @ J E d y c a� o Z ` a' O 2 0 Q O ®N N O Ny j O a) E 2°N N E L N O 0 CO a 2a ® tLN Zs= 'a UW ut � . Clac 1— O) or 'O C d .LS aa)i 2 aj .a'.. Y a) 2 U co J c 0 N m3 aoi 3 .° L '. � as T a) 0 To CO ) a) U X. O) m f0 ul E O) V) COL v) a) m C U a) E a) ` aJ W N a ° a) O O) C 'O co UI 0a) CO N W O ._ O a O) J o o d a) w u) N C C cc (0 U' -O C "O O` a7 9 = a) V J a 12 .a'. o M u) c O O J Cr) u) a O N Q' - co .O) 0 O (0 co N L a) O o t CO y Z C = E ) 3 a 41 C D u c — co 3 N a O a �, ou, v'4 `c av, o ` o .° cc o mm E O EDyf c `>-OE = � 2 0 2m5al - a) u Z � � °° oYc � � Ja ayo ° 3 � uO` 0) � c ao co cao 0 0 0 W ov . o)o) a ma) c • y o0E a cq 3 � Z 2 UW o15 LE n_ c; vc, I- V co N a C ° o a) O oC c V -O0 Da lei L L lL U C .L.., C Ur M .u'. C a+ Z C a) C .L.. cu " w m a) N O v 2 as � V d me o ,c -.-E -0c °a) (,co ) .JCO z c0 Ear c 'O) 3 ° ai cor T N _ o) c NEE E O -o W CO d >.= o c . o w a) ° d wCtn mom ` c° 2a) .. TJ Q ` y a) U X — l0 N O) O N OO L NCO N fn r-qi d O N N a) m O N O 'O C > a) u) a) O a a) OI u) r t U a) U i a) c a) 'O 2 co J N N -° E U ai m i M a) .L, OI N a U a1 J N E "O C D ' J h. L3 oo) •• va) a � w c as O rau5 ' " -° 22 coa-0 -O ° o92 "C d fa .0 ..S2 9' N '-OO Ca aJ � o C O N c to Z`a t o � p 'V ° JO �y c0 .� p, co = C-5 E a) 3 °3 oz @D m cca - - O c ca 3 N a) •- N � ui e=O 'c aNao � c � yuiYovE' en y Z N C C 2 d a) >. O U J N U — O 0) r E E 2 0 ° m ° m o N O) m y . a. r c o c O c E N o c C �? N c U aJ y N y a o a) a z 0 co C _ O)� C 3 coo J N - Y - O Oct 0 a in u .c z c Q U t° _ W cc i o .c r fin a C7 U w .L.. .� LL N L a f: o T O C C V ti O E J J O O O o O E0 yn a opC t a) E 0 C cu a)C N U mo)Loa> c° E aisa) VJ O p 1— C N 23.as a z O L o Q C a v; O E I- a C DC 0 C Co N C T= 0 2 co o J > ? L ..: W y 0 as J O,_c o ' ° Z c 1:3C 3 RI ED oo e..) co 00E " c o WTs • C N O) a) ' L ' O To LL Q M z „ 00020c0 =E m N N a a) Ica o .O i- 22 E C .N ma= a) E .. gg)�nacia� 3N00 02 a) O cnz ... � `oCU ° z con a z ni CT ° N w • ° y ca a) C ° O o > C ca ._ O '-> of a) ° E ° -O ° p a= LL 0) a ° Y m a > O co —" ≥ al -omL- C5 1:3 -= W 0 ° aa) 10 w ° w N 0 O O m U O a- a a C ` ro C To O C O ° N w C N C ?X N O .°. "c w or.c a 0 ui Y O -O J O w 0 •0 N Q c o c ° E ° m 3 0 S am m ° y - In C�/ = a0 ._ oS aaa (On o 0 c � '- NW . w .c ° s ° L NEom0 yNNm o00 4_ a E '- o of w 45 w o -O 0 ao � � � w ° E ° � � a uc � cmc � Ecpac ° wy `!) ca e ° om2g ` a E . c � mo cw z _ a> a> v°, ° O > t = c_ co `c -0 c ° N I� C O C W — ° ° w O ° L C ° U ° CO a) CV 0 CO Q O L 2 .. U S E U co m ° .L. ai Tc0 0 a_) C O co c 'E -o > c c > — a ° E O ° T cc c c a) . V O O t- w O E C w ° w 3 N U J CT) a E c n" CO E o C o O) w 3 C d C o ° o a) c :: O)l== a a 'i -O a Om- � Q w ca ° "O O° ,0O 2 ] ama1 JVN co z 0L oL a a�°i 3 0 y co ca m a w .- w ° m -000to `2, oSE "' v co to wacyd -oc cad " � E OV a Ea. . ZEmE :? ° 0Eo0 ° mc ° 3c ° E Lai ° °56- ° ° N O c c cE a° 4:3 m � d CIO c co _ ca a ° -O C U C gvac° aDm0 os2cam SEaco mct a • v 117.1 w = 3 ° L0 -O Cof N C v ° c0 (0 N 0 .c O — CO ` ai O L C CO c C c 2 m U a C.) /Q 0 c 0 O) U co m E 0 E0 °w > a>) � = cco ° O `o C C w ° c ° w L w -O U O` L c 2 ° o w C a1 > ° o a) N Ow .C .- 0 T > .t„ N ui L L ° Y c oo w E E a ° to To 3 ° 3 N c '2oy at - CD To @c°) � ofi,) - -aSOS a2Y ,c_ 2 co 0 EE CO a Y C N E •— U �. a °a ui -o -O .O. E o -°O w 0 'C a a,._—' acv0oo Lai 30 ° o ° cu ° C L 'O j L -c U O) E o O a c ° w H C C " -O .N ° ._ 0 ° 0 0 $ 0 0 0C y a 'O c w CO c o o f ° C a ° � Q w o r m r c°io cao 0 _oc0 • 0Eza ° am yo0 7F- L o).� a) cos E U ° . ° ° CO ,)"y m o w CO O CO o C . m U Q a U a w c 0 Ar) ° ° U c0U ° 3 Otcga) = .E SE mm2 o Oaa m o) ° a Sr ° Cc .c 5 O r0 > Q) 7 Do ac) 3 r it a ° a) ea '� y N C N N w m c Y 0 vi O can 4-1 Q w CJ ° C1.> OC N a� N E NN C .) CO88V � 0 d ° o) E W y o mac -oD f w.-' y ° m ti v E aoi) ° 2E It Soc ° oo Q E 0 m c a ° a `° o O N 0 ° mc0c > m e a) • LL Q Mai Z a 0 C 03 C Q) T ? - co > — ° C ° O ° f0 N w ° N ea Z no o) E w d d co EI CD o N O .O E J U N NO - N -O >, O O O .t.. 0 O O C q m c o c - 3 w wo E 2 `p — ° a o - ≥ c 3ocw o • Dc m a tmD 0 N 77 -O c (a a y m ° a-° O co N 0 NCFco co o E -0 p a) CL a) la .... •- •- .a) O meat E Em � a " a> E � a) mt a Ec°� - O a) war a ° 0, -0 Cao 2 V1 V� -� y E u, CD c)a, ,_ w woa wc � a m � mu) a1)) (V e 'O Q a) a 0 0 o f o o c 'O E Y O N C y d ' O . _ N x W w m a a) r. E c m -° `° fl ° w o = c a t � � ov, � � � 3 vmi -° vN 3 .c a) o mco E -O rra` i C co O N• O a c la N O J a) E ® p a2 o a) N _ - m a j =o V (ri c , w o) 3 ° a wa a�'i o c `o a) Z p 0 N y I- C V O Q °0 ° W ca a .r. H N a) c - a - Z a3 co Q N N ~ co O N N N c >, ° a) 8 L. m O N (ca O ° 1- w0 ° D E E O co O). C C - a) a) m 'O C a) "O U c ca O C a) co -° C a1 a) co ° N N aJ .C N y CO U) " ooc�i L'' Ec � c ° > Ea ° a"i o u ca cov, m �' c E w CD m y .- ° '; a s ai a N (v) c -� as w 0 0 '7, C a> C a) -° N x E (O -0 (rio oa yc mf° � coO of ° m m3 uoi ° 0E hoc € L °: a) a Co 30 , (? 2c or m0r o a° 3p � o n > o m C mr a .3 � d c 3 c -° E at E ra oowa coo ma) co -0 ° N u) 5a? Ea) "O v mEj2 C C (O a • "-co at o J a) E u> o N o N :O > (° m C M N m 3 a w° U N N a1 U C to O O O O • r. a ° aas s s zm 2 m � DO)) vin O mob Y N V E w d .� y 0 N N U a1 w NO C c O C >, -0— 4)0 ° 15 -c a) � Ea) � 3 0 V co .L. m@ Oi ° 'O c E a6 -o° _ o 1, c os N co co 444 c � c ° m � o E = a`) E ` 7 co 0 co !pi!! � E (a co o) m Vi � � ≤ E � � Oa a = itja29 HFL Ia a c D o O y C oE Y N�,ii E -o N ° ° o ax w o E c c .o E — Na or °- 0 a' ,n ° E � $ c _° o `m aa)) a a) o 3 Ez oat m -° CO a) o ° c � = 3 c 441 N a a O F a) t N 3 CO D o a) ,, O O)— c a) J, 0 D � ma) cc mE v@ 0 in 0 moo ` EN 20acoatoO ---- 3 (° Y > m y vu, a) , a ;M ° mL = � ° >, 0 a co Qm m (nwa) eo 4. V ar //h�. C) >, O O a 0 -° o E C w O c E > co -§- o as a oc .c -§- 2Ea .ca o ° ° mC > d v, m �' c ymmE r = m Ems —° � w < � Q a of ar = o) o c Ea) ?• c wr c in N Z O m � m as a) w 0 p LLI .' " Or _ a `'i 4 a) a 5 m ai •ai 'O o m r CO m co O m a v oD c c 3 0.,-c... 0) o a) € o E a a a) x E -°° � c w EE i_ a02 2 et o .- o • N .. O C o N y a) -O p w c c 3 > m m m E E o o m u cTTN U m 3 m O ED CO L U �° Q L °"m m EC ≥ > a) EwL - a _ a • a) ._ _ O o m o m v V O 0 m m g. a) U L V 0 olw o '- a 0 $ C ° a i— t y m a E C O _ N 4 o w m Q m C O N O E _ CO 3 . co N„ o O N . O "O a) U m U C J N E Z . = aQ2a) Ea . O O 6 ca E a ° c Ea) oxa) O Z ._ .... v 0 a) a cD _� O N N N L. = N a) N CO N m C as as a)U=C NC U N 0. C m o a) .0 "0 O •- E m 0 .L.. 0 0 2 o, vi f/) X p a) i� `) O m y ` m0m aCa� E9c Et o z o Z .N 2 m cu c > > ^ C a O N N N .-. u x ca Too. V .°O -Co 6uami tgig m C = a1 C 0 CO N t ' C U a ma a a ° N C w N "O m N a) O U OWE E V E m a c _ m Qmc .C a) aa)) 1, a) L m a) c cL O N c N cp °"� ° amca E 0 vo a) m ,,,o a) Nye yNy umito v 'O N U m y U 'O t0 C C 'zoo o o O -0 a a I > y • J Y a) a o a) 'v c , C _ Z ° N p W ° o c vi y e .t„ in y m a) u) o) m o c y N (.1 t U J C t/) c O N p_ C .y m E m U O a) -° N a) •- E m co A w m N 22 d CO N N N x -° N U so CO E P. < y >' m � m 2c � 2caa� E ° c c1' E a, m ° C a 0 'cm a � ° a° Z 2 = N m a) a) O N O a) N O II CO E C > > '5. -p t co a l9 N U N r CO y to x 0) N N O. j l` a) = O 'O 'U !O N N !a C N cJ U O N C = -O .. U U 'O CO _ U N - o a .,. 1 aE = c .L„h. .s.. N N 'Oa OIN w m 22 aC .CO E m -2 N C C oC Ct a) 10 ) yCNC aOO amm J I. 1 to U O N ' 2 .O. - co a) X m m to m m .C o 't3 woos N 3 N m 1] O w N N N N J a C m a.c U cc c !a J a a T5 O or) C - m Cc. •y .2 N °_ N ° m�+ O U N CD C O -C arrasm m L U N L ° a 3OZC : Qm > Q3al- cPi- -cm a. .., 0 c o a so L 0 0 C E — >. co .o cg .c m O E U C C U N 4_ m = N O w 0 0 b g ) ° N a o .c co E m N ° m o J O .c O O .c t E aM a m -0 °-0 5yrmE ° r fn Q c o a) 'O a@ co . T N O j a) N N ..C U D U N m C U .c .,, m yN G UJ -0OC Ca) g. r0 sa-3 r, co 1-.) W 7 ti 0 °) 3 (020 CO 0 oL om- °� ?" m � E — m to mN Em coc 03°)12 Lm > C J N z N o v o o O > 0 O m C '.>-. >.'O O j LL a M j 2 N O J N J a)0_.0 Cii, O -O 3 2) N Y °U c V • A C a l— c O 0 U o f ..- co o O) E O c N 2 m Qom waao amen Q31c0 .0 Hmon F• N • o a) a) I P O) a) J m y J d C N Y m m -p O U -0 •E'a.0. C 12 > 3 O)' C m N 0 `O N N N 'O a m co _ CO th m ►as > ° a) .C m m a E ` '5 a) 0 C a) a 'm a J 0 L , .—- a) -o a 3 � � 0 m ` J J C N Q EE a) fp -°o aC � � Yo N '� a m .7( ,.2 1046 aauo) > aEcN r- i W a) E2a'ma4 Ca) 0CC ca ? c o w m m U _ N <0 O E O E a a) 0 (°a J ) N 2 U N y J « C O a ° a E s Y N v ° ° J N C O Z _ N C J m p1 Q coact, a) .� L N L 0 C ca ° o E 0 . ° L N Q HL Oa — U 3 . o m O N -o co m I- N m a) c p c 'c O) Z, c- a) m C CO C rn o II) al « N ≤ ° J C Y co C 0 C L X tc — C Y "o N ° O m co a) -O a> m co U ,_ 'mO m •C E O. a co S) `) O C a) m an3omo .° 2a`> -: a 3 2, 0 m E N N � QM 71)>: f C C) = m o $ �Y J _ `p � ' O 3 m -O O E ° O Nj a!n •C N co a wa) 00Oo o > E •o -o E -ooc u ra c c c a o m O. a) Q C a.= = O CN •,. C m O C0 = 0 E O O J J O o)`— t a) C C O 2 ° N O 2 1 5 ° a C 'Oy a � N N y 'o U N j `°-' C O i s000EuEto Coaccrooa� 'C • � a ° oomU3 ° 'mUyoB � � m co N TS cej f-I C TOY c 0 C V N ° V .C N m rC) m m '� w3 � �` (L .. _OC scmc ° CC Z. .,. a) N m «`y, CO p -0 O N C ° O m N N v -- m m t°E N O O )p J Z N C p ° U ' a a N C J y N E W Q tip' cEmc3 � p@o � a0i E > uu)) 3mac E C) m N C .0 r a) E C C V 3 0 y ._ .� '-' N "O a) N 7:) �` O CO m To y Y Tot— 2 E N o y N o c 3 y c a co' a N N .Lm. 2 ° V a a CNEE Yx J co co a) m a) (a Z' ° Nm aC d r E a Cp p L ` a) d E -o = C O m 'o N E m 0 N • a 'b m O C a) U O _N '�" in- U N .� 0 0 0 y C 'O D E J V - m .- ,- c I Y . N .- C C N C C C U N O - N U .J = O '; L ` V) ,N .O JO J "O O ° n ° a) 0 2001;5 2 'C -p C 0 'O V) , N � C 'o -a C Li" o, E E O C y '° U m y L cg.. m JO C m a J O a) �- E C E C O C J a c as C N a m ++ o f O X L O ' o 0 0 0 ° L O O 0000 V > ° o• `m -o a) H 3 m J OJ2H U 3 E ° Q Uav 2 h. O O ° m c a) Z ° o >. E 2 2 to E 2 E C)) C 0 J .y O UN. O C O L N (I) N O C L 5k- co W N Ya 3 0 N 4 5 u a) _ co o aa) a) E —t4 mZ � Em2 • j U ,w-t5 >. '..= p > > N O. H I . I I Co IN d Co 0 0 = CoyI _C r ~ ii 1 - \ ar3j - � a - 9 / \ \ § 9 { & { m ' \ 0 0 m / ..... •- / cu ® k / ) ] ) I »/ ) % \ ] \/ eE0 " N " (T) 2 / { 0N0 ® $ \ 8 - ¢ / ) \) &A - 0 23 2t3 r ' r3 \ ) f - - - - - - ) - - - & § I i \ c I # E - / co } -bi- - t a cow co cu O \ - / - 2 a Lo q) ° } / / \) \ } k / im \ � _ ' ` e � i - — �� \ . f ` ; { 2 .e 2 % { { \ ( k } CO / = 22fee � # - k w $ _ ; .- 3 { &3 at 23 , - — / C Re � - a - a A. - - 7 § i - 7 g I § \ \ I _ a -'- Co } •- 0 \ » I _ / ) co } $ •\ ] } \ } y }; } > \ } . rt C - 15. ` ] 0 \f € : $ - + »2 ro § / :d12 2e E{ $ { ff 2f { » ` ( \ a) { Da [ / ) } c \\ _ ! rQ { 3 { &3 - ¢ - 0 Co . co { ) - / - a a 2 \ a 3 — % 7 k § k E E ! J / CO - - 0- )El i f o co ( u. 4 § _ § z0 ) G n • N ORTH 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Section 3.29 Mitigation Summary • • Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 3.29 MITIGATION SUMMARY This section summarizes the mitigation measures identified by CDOT and FHWA to eliminate or minimize social and environmental impacts from each of the build packages, including the Preferred Alternative. The impacts are summarized in Section 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts. Mitigation measures that warrant monitoring have also been identified below. Monitoring has been identified where it is appropriate for specific resources to ensure implementation, meet permitting requirements and/or help identify trends and possible means for improvement. As described in this section, monitoring has been identified for air quality (during construction), water quality (per CDOT region and statewide program/permit requirements), wetlands (per Section 404 permit requirements), noxious weeds (during construction and revegetation), hazardous materials (during construction), paleontology (during construction), and a number of construction activities (as listed below). Commitments regarding mitigation measures and monitoring actions associated with a selected alternative will be included in the ROD. Impacts to social and environmental resources are discussed earlier in this chapter. Transportation improvements and impacts are presented in Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts. • • Mitigation Summary 3.29.1 >� N a) O' 00 • a N o 0 cb a> v0i CZ N 0) U E a 0 �.0 CO .c 4- 0 CO m " 0000 a > a O `o aco 2 N u) W E N U C -- °) CO2 �0 a a) Q O a1 c .t-. al c E °c'� y y � y Qy c) '� 5 O C _c 02 .._ 2 m -- a E c° v ,_E .-6), -C = r 0 r m N m m o o N E C .O a) L p Q o .O a U b m a -0 ._ 0 m o. c c a m E W g .J0 me 0 a`) U c = c U °c Ct C 00 c m o E y r5 m N W -0 o O O (0 N .C .C N m o z _O E mcOy ° O 200 ¢ of 0o) a) D > o -O a 0 .> a ) a) a) >, co N o ai 0 0 a) Eoc ° > 03 t 2 '-' (a a) co = `° a� -° o ° a`2) $ o 0 o w c ° o -O C c a L a ° C 'to Tog L N y a -J L a o a c 3 N ui 0 0 00 in. oaE .m a— C2 m O .- ° _ E0° 03 — > o. m ui ° >• _ ° 0 E co E ,, 0 c O c u E 3 0 o m a C V) .0 a CO C C T = U m J .N -0 Z - 2- N C O "O C E 0 N Co J .0 N CD CO Qac> oE _c apes- 2 -occo °or - mad Cl) 2 c m C m .- c c m ti E a 3 a 3 Q 3 m 0 a a) m o 'o 0 > ≥ E L0 0 0 0 E u) a)if„, 3 m e > 0 -.- m 2o O ° N > i0 N 3 Q 2 > C UO 0 0 > o 3 N a a0c 0) `0 aL >` 0aa, '° a°i cc°i �? � Qaxi °) w 0m - r 0 o 0 o C d C 3 0 c -0 O co t-`—.. n 2 N V y u) o �y' C L X > 0 "O O Z N C C 2 U N N U �O C C O E •.• 0 0 a) 0 .0 C U Co J N co a) a J N U O O J 3 w o N N. f0 ` O C C LE C °' U V) O m O n U ` C IN '~ OI J .L.. C w o 3 m c O o 0 > C U IS 'O ` 'O C N ° EYLotic to YC ° E O 2y -t° U C O y 0 -0 01 > ca) ° .a) o c 0 ° .o C m CD a) O U 2 >, a m 0 ,r0 2 0 t U a= 2 ,L. U co co o a) a I.- f co° 33 > - y - c0 LSE N m =ocy) co0 -0 ea 0 < c� - oc3m 3m =' � 0 c2O1r_ coa - o .c I O a-2 a) -c E = O fiat O 0 �` .° -- N cA a) 0 oLLN0,V 330 = Em3o> oca) 5n,to 0 .° Ca ~ y o N 'O -N. E 00 C m ` N N J ° Z C 0) N J _J a) w m N N = .c E U N C C c to o N U 0 ° .0 (a a Co -° 3 o 0 N 2 2 0 0 . 3 ° as 21 a mE > oEUmo > � a2 CO � o20 -O a ° yiii ° C °) L (N/> N N a) a1 .a V.— c N.O a 0 L a1 .0 .C co r 'u m = — 0 03 2.- 2 ,= m m > .- 4- - ° = co WO - dti � m 0mm c a ° '0 - -0ccm - - 0 C 2 3 0 aa) 0 Q ar ° E) Qa) Cr: 0 ; u) 00EEc m3 � -oyCEmf° a ° a5O ` 3a> CC 4 0 2 O U O O C > 000 0 m o ' oo2c2 c ` E , -§ 0J0. E an, aa)) aUc3 ° 2a it co Eo Jai m0u .Uc 2 $ •- Q 3 .5 — a) 0) wm > c 3 0 -0 a . :°1 2 2 4 •0 `-a m 0 0 0 3to ° c c -00 O@ C C cv N E E C o 0 ° o b .L.. = o I °) a) a) a) "O N o o m CA to. =N ° N 2 0 N ° U U a) F. N o 0 w C C.) U ~ o f .` ° l E a c� y > o m c C E .5 E >`-`- ao 0 S .-0) 0 ' E 0 E O ° ) (0 'O >L a) 0 -..=. J c co U to @ o O 0 m_ c O a U O o '>>C o CAN 2 Z N -. CO > -O Q .e '0 "O a Q N = a n U = co Z 'O as - U > U W co 'i O C • C = M V 0 C 0 O C iIQ 0) > 000 0 E 0 '0 N 10 'p C O N C V c c c mg '' c c 0 0 0 N0 WO 0 ID c o o a; c r m S) U 0 N 'y 0 ro 2E o 0 w O U N ° N �N m a3 ... N a) > N O CD CO 3 v T a E a -° co L E o 0) C )Il c.! .l C o coy a) m o .N m I.I.J N N m E _' .E m "I' o vi "° :? a cL.> U 2 c a mE2 .N = as N @ c > E c y 2 �c 0_ o °> > o CL P_ 'N 2 U N N N O N N ON 2 a E a> Co a) 'j N a a c a ro Z ,_ Q a N = V CO N N �-+ C oa E o o f N ° o -E— a E N > .L.. a) N V in oN E@ ° o a)c ° — c a 3 a) 2 N E C 'V > a> N O N To.; a) N co O O co C = W C .O a> cC N r w a7 N E N ° C co N L O E N N ° 5 a> o 4.O N a> O O .3 N .'O" C J > 0 O) jo > o u) a> N °� u °Lei c a '° _° a., a) a c r i.- aEi a)) a0i o o 'o c E c -oo o coC > .C co> a a_O Q D C)) aa) J ° a) N N -° a d N a N 3 _ > a Q a m D C a) ° C m — a) Tj >45 a> m ° o ° 3 E >, o as — d c c , a.c L 0 .c a 2 c E o 0 a> o a) 3 y = V°, ' Z • o Eo3ma; _ ° c a m .° a c m 3 c ° a :4 03 Ea N o 4- 16-. o �> o o c E v 0 c N CO aN ' O 'O a O E by = j °' ° 2 622 o. N a C 3 N CD ('n M• z •i N▪ Q > .c C Q) c a N N N N CO > J d Q C m O .' $ -5E c O, E > o) ° 'c- c � o E w 3 2 a) o0 a $ o _rn .r C o_O O y VO J y o C 'p �. O N 0 = N a CA I- 0 y C O V -0 a ≥ a 0 0 ' 2 Q > E D - E c O D w O a) N c a) N ._ a a) co — N N J 0 V -o v . U 3 .c oy c E c a) o c -0E ° o m a� o E c0 ID r..0 E 5o cE @ > a) 00 ma) ° t ▪ ON -oE 3 E a ON 2 o 9 a) c t _ m3 co)N J J o O O 2 ° `1 D > N = O) " 4 Cr C 2 N N a7 c N O. Nj> - c .C N O O> N 3 N U 0 2 m o ") y 4 p> N E a`) ° E o m o n N E 2 Co N E E N N 5 U N Sa o o f — O a) ' w c 'y A N a) co N (0 = U cp (6 ' o C '@ ad 2 Co C V w 0 N N 3 a) c N 0 = °1 a> O U O J O •_ aZ d 0 ° 2 C 2 0 C y V 3 C a o E_ .0 arc C N J U J a> O O C U p> 2 O 0 2>,N- 0 N co U N a.° N T d N U o 5 . L � -° �`' N fr o N C N p C E 2 N c0 L N 2 b a)0 O N E CO > E O .O o cC C C U .`-. Do o N b0 U > c - y c rm c N c N .E a; a E O) 2 ° 42. C • . a) aQ OaC O 'cp C O m @ C U = a)" p3 ° ° yap co I. oNN m m ' > ° a? 3 .0 3 o N 5 w Ea) 7 N a) To y OI J m E .) �.... oO — a> a N t ° 0 2 y O 1°m y o Q a E E a> o t =m w °> 2 U a3i ° 3a m c o = > 0 c 0 > 3 U N 3 ,_ E a c U a 2 C ii 2 N °)C , �. w :E m- o 3 aa>> of ° f° t a> .E a> o' ° a) .N d m o 5 d la .y 'N O m J O c ca U C L C L X a s o f 0) 5 '° DE Z Q .0 w Q y Q a) F- ° Q H W O O $ c — d Co N2 Q Q F cC F a a I- 2 E W y 0.1 7 M CS O LL < CU 7 4-' 7 0 '4 a c • • m a) a) cn o CD c C y o o C Co y 4-- a = E N � W '' O 0 7 a) 70 L co a 0 Z' N C p N y y N ID O y a) CO a) O r a 6 O ) _C ln -- O L _ !n C +� o ca w N O a) @ e0 C 2 C 9 in 4 '16- (NI o C N N 7 O V p 0 70 rT�, a E 0 E . 5 •a Cox E2 o ai w = w o p C 0 .. a,03 CD 3 2 > w c0 :. a U CO c VJ i a) fi 0 7 C O E a O N .r C ° U 3 U o V L C c6 O b U L a) z _Q > ..= 0 > ca N 0 0 co O V o -a _ E � a) I) c w. VT a L w 3 ul O > E L a) ° F. o ° a) i- mE OoE 0 0 0 ao a� E o .• >, c >> c a O 3a) Z •c Y o ca 'a) I- C Co E o ac> CD a) 'a n ca w• c`o a) a) E o) U V ` -C- o E E ° NE o ° ° � ≥ > a) ca _o c co E -� a) a) ≥ co o o'o o y o A E as a co a) 0 a) 7 •E i 2 7 a " m 'C co ._. C Q E > r co >, E � a) v°i m � oea -0al (10 In a v a) Q a) Q E 3 E ,.- coo oCO CD 7 e f ma) a�• Q ° N 442 C N .7- 41c:' a) C 7 -o Ca E E Co Co 03 a 0 cv a a) m . -0 E 3 O a >. C c0 ?? a) a) 3 O a) Q �` w a a Z 7 CD �n N ca o c 2 L CD w w a) p o a � 7 _° co,_ � V w e t°. d as v >. ui E m ° c c a) c° E ... a) Co a) C O E U x -a L 2 0 Cv a) _O N N e0 ." 'a m c O E a) L . a) C L 7 9 Z a N COp C cQ 'C a) � f9 -,) c0 > m m a CO 0) m V C N •w 3 a .2., E a) O o 4- L .- Q Q a) m N O C O el U O N as O C Co a) p U O N N "Cr CO N a) O) U cca m as miml=i css U C "N L ° C r C '0) „C 4- 't a a o Y W ... a al m FSi ZT ca m d > N O N 7 7 'tJ .U+ w ,_ C -o as coma_as a U _ a �, a� i Cal aac r Lvoio rocco m .Q E � � � al co y d Ca CC 4= w C w w c E vi o .= -c 45 .0 2m Co :? oo 2 io aC) C 'U , C a) a -E a`) > d 'E ,_ a ca O .0 N ►. a) (pc E v m "L. a m = co a) m a i o 'E a) 0 -C L ° Co Oa ca O 71-0. 7 i) ui ai in u) �- O N N ea 2 a) o > oCri oo u°') La) C ) o 0 a) o p a 3 a 7 a E 7Ea u) >, e0 � $ o c o •� •'E ° v C c0 o c0v v a � aa`oi Cr � v p C C o N- `m Ea) 0) ccoaa)) £ - a) cj CD o Co o ° •° — o ia N ° o C ≥ o co a c +• `-� 3 co Vi p O O c d c C E co aJ ca C >,co 4 N a) E a c2o P �O_ C ui O C O ≥ (0 C N C ,r C Y "O 'O C N O C o) •"' C '° " O -•- a w ..I y v) w E cC6 a E u) O CCs N L.. co E .. Q) cur c O N w a � a 0)C mm a c � o0 m 1-i) ti ca 3 •= coo , 0 > a, a2) a) .. o o : E o :•-•E a) «, ca .. w .o 'V > a) _c 2a)w ml- 1, 15 -0 c Y c z a) -o 2 C N co co +311 fi)_ •c0 >+ a) ° C4 w z r c > 0) &5 '5 O C W O7 O ce Q ea c '3 to ao k- m a) a) co Cn aE a a _ w v g y c > E c or °oo `oE a 7 E .E caa) a) malaia) a) c E c aa) a co 5 , -0- .. LL U E O r o j E 0i s2 -= a .C O O L o 2 m C T.T E Cw .E U3 cca a- HEc Q = a) Qog ,ErEo) g H- fn 0 m m _C :'= C yN •2F '3 W I- 3LL To ill y 7 CPI C z el _• • C 7 Cl, V IC C 1L Q aJ 7 'p o� O ,BP 0 a " a) m C el ,oz.,) Z > _ E o m E m 12 U0 Q 'J Oct >, .0 O O A ° 0" E -o -o C E c o ° o 'o rri 0 a) oo a ca a o so .o c co N U fa p' C m N ° .O E a a a o) O U E .UOc E .E aa)) E c m cri i—oW O O '_O �_ 'O y Q - t6 (a > J J o c fa o)-a-, 0 0 3 3 co c a' - > E ° - co 0 N c-° a O e c • 'oo t° > > ° o0 0J) J Zj O > d C O• � � � "V 'O 2 N_ F-� m •� � Y y y 0 t 2 5i co m e O co N c c t~/) " � `a.C O 0 0 C C -0 O l0 E O o C C C ° U J -0 O O co L co O O N V p 0 2 os a'°i F- 0 E L L 2 E CD c co 2 o � UO 3 3 -cO c ai N O N a o— y N_ y o D v N .co Ts .c N a E U E a O ',S- C O O O >, OF- 2 N E L E c O C C C cc o .o O. J • ., C O y 0 U U co O O N a • ° m2 L3 WC (` — .J — r co X 0 0 a) N OC) o).0°)_O > o' E E E o o .' 3 L N c o > c ° o ° O a) 0 'E' 3 vi a J =oaa m = caa d .o -o _ • c oc@y3 O co On 'C a O > > ?' a E - 5 C J C 2 U N '� N O N o- O O N O J e' • C O L O C .0 U U 0I 0 N N W C y ≥ -O E 0 a C '� C O d O. Ct„ �= "O C U o ° ° "No 'y O UU 0 mN0 -OoC o m ° ° E � C w �a�i � � m o a' co c > r o f N > ° CO a 0 0 o 3 p) O N E - a o � .� CL 'N .E TT, O O c 11 y "N' Y J U O C R ..y LL C C ,-7, co N O J O fa O C CO a O to q a) o . -p p U U m y c 3a) m "o N 3 i oF. " o r) M -co :N E co co c3Ts30 to cD o Uma $ � o 2 co 'LS D co Q 'V C N O > o m0) N N C O O ° O C (a C O w f3 N C f/) F (a t6 t6 co C O U c a N O J ca c 47 m U co J O CO C N r O N .0 '.0'O O Z' a' W N N y E co N -o .N i. p O J c0 (a O O m d 0 c , U N C O C C N O Y O) O) a 0 J O O p )a O b o 3 O d I-, O E U O 'er p N v Ec03 m2 m me .2 ° 3a N 2 w p U Csi- U o U E — O O C C O U O O O Y N@ O C] 2 0 N E.c D O .L.. C C C N C N fa (NOS l0 � d N N .O+ _a >. O N c .+ O ... O C V > U O > O N C O J - O N Om ¢ � � ° ao a 3o � � a No .-c -0 3 °) bt J co 2 N E m E y E > N - 0 C t cu o C '- ;TO o CU'^ p 'E --c5 ? TO w 3 c N w S a m E c N 7 La) ....-c 2 45 ct CL O -O 0 = O O _ 5 0 • .0 N C ' a) C eD ° H Na) 3m 3 20E -p NO 'N E °) ° O N C c0Caa> ' m 'ON OCw2 opv o. ti co El 0)amo N ° m5 m °) 5 Po -= '� ° T a c �E�++ « vy ° C EC a Y . (5 E g 46- '3 0 m 2 0.0 O o c Y E co "0 .° N c, — E CO 0 N " O FF' w ?' J x in ° N .~.a O c z p) O co . y Ct L d U a d U CO in- a N W mo d Z (n .OO C U C N N . O (!� �' O N C O O E N O y to f � Ua °va� 00oE a - - 22 N cu m N C M U C lL cc • b 0 • 0 0 C a O F" K Z 5 C 00 2 r: Nis • C 0 CO C . U L O co U a C "O c E rt c'+ o _ C Oym aM U w co n 0 0 C L = I n m H CD C C am E E 3 N J N ° .L.. c E L 0 O L C m m a o-.. m m = .0 m .0 m o)'9m 2 � Joo a 2 m c o-� c0 a; � a E 3 c a a o ca 0 . m m c 0. co C CO E .0) In (f) b E tt E rn 3 k.c E c c N O ° m r� m C U N W a a o 0Q a a) U C0 O ° m n a c D 0 Y o a O a m E = m 0 0 o Oco o C . ON .C 0) m -O m 3 L y O m0. 0 3 N a 04 E 22 m mm o coN -0 L N N 0 -0 O N L C a L 2 COC 'O a (V U C E L z m 2 .. in H U '- L !" f, "O N o 0 C O t� J O 1] a E O_ N 2 -A m c = .•• CU >' • y.'or o m m vi y � a J a3 f0 O N `� N °'N > 0> .0 fC 0 CO O` 0`) U om2 o ._ mmLm, 7 a 3 o m m o 0 Em nom a o O O = a) N U 0 N J U 0 0 -o E Q D o .c a, m J LL a c 0 < C c co C O a o a 5 a o Y •o - m E0 m m o a v >>m � o a - L E 3 Ti. a) ,>a`_- o o)� N • a) U m O > ` o CO w 0 O C U CO 00 0 > 0 0 = = 0 O V 0 N c N a O c c ≥ m N = C 0 4. O. H a m m m �° teaO vi oo m w Co O a) L omo me _oO-o5 :? a) 'o 0 >. UU CC CO � 0 C) U o �a 0 '- >.4= co o a . °) o U '- a) Q a 0 O 3 = :+ m N 0 C L.. >.o .co v) .LO+ L 'J" a1 a) to y C 3 C J _c 0 L Q L = t4 aco 0 O L U ` N N o-"O U 0 CO J :t. w 0 c L com m 'C c33 Nc � ;; ca°o c 0 = ° m 08 c -0 U COC_ m E C O a) S -c c0 0 c c n°) .N co U E 2 3 � '> mLL c r % o ° EU E w E � o z � aaO C'Fa a- co 2 DN `o vo C cone, ac _0 coE � oo o m � c cv Ew m Ca 2Ow O C ._ +0+ m ≤ t m O m o a U U .U-_. t` a O o 0 'C L. o m 0 m E € o 0L0. 3 M o 'o J c CO E c> 0 c 0> c c rn G a m E `� m o ≥ 'gip c3 N co CO a o c co �' orn - E y C �.�' J C O d m a y a) m C oym � Occo8 o 00 J m Eco c -2 .E n0 .,0)•2—b m aEi E d0i_. d .,-m m 3 a oy .c E o co N > a) L O ¢ co c c ?) 3 a) E co e C 3 E o co ': C C_ a > -0 0 t 0 .O U a) .. m C '0 C c a O 0 'O m .> aa N '0 co L C �` C CD CD 0 O o) a) O) J N m a) m N — 0 o)o a) 2 °? m v' E E �. � LL ..(pc ) E - U E co 0 m a E .c a0, y m ac C N U m U O)y .C co n E coon o) c a) c m U p °) aa)) a.o ,ni_ _iccor c amiN2 m E E - m c a 'o _o E . a) c co 2,0 m � too_ m a a o .0 Ern — c '� cE om � ai � N tip c = = E '50 .c 'oo OD 0 c >.rmm = vi t ' am0 o c 3 vo)im co EE A▪A o .0 a`) mm >. 2 da moo mr U 3 o No O 0 v •'" w °)— o a) Em .. c ° Emm ≥ > c m dN m ≥ J cu a) . 0> O .d. '0 0 O m m L C E 3 0 a 0 -No E .0 'Z CO o) c 0 m I- .c .- w m o o a m aa) .o) a g 'c o ' = 0 > co o z 0 U O, ami c a .2 to m a 2 3 a a) co m c a al z a>i m o. coo E 0 o ° 0 vi i..- 2 o ., � „ a.. .E - E � a) a V t E `� o L o y m e 'en C 15mc ga .°o � coCDTac2 mcf & a a, r_ CD 2co me 2E y -0 e- E 'o 33 0 '3 U N Q 21 0 1-2 o -o 0 0 3 a 4' ) w 0 c o 0) > c 00 L -_ r 0 cozo_a) o al ct- s- L'pro Emma Q 20 ,20E CD H3 Om yN (A 0020I - N o0 OjaLW Oo �2Q am u) unu 33 �`O n C' m -oCC5H a a A` a a a Um W y T CO co 3 • C z u a)M ii: Q fa FM 0 d O eel co F 0 m m • T C m N > E c) w 3 E 0 - a w m O 0 'm a) - Y N = `;` a 3 a) w a a) a` - E >. m '0 C C C O .c C a) a co o lc U o o c E "co SE `-^ (/� b m c H .O f ti) W o of °° ° O = 3 a a o) 3 0 l—iO o 0 '> 'g 0 3 N 0) ° ° m o m o N � — O c c w o m 'o E C a) C O .L. CD N 'O .E C m a) o E ° o 0 3 ° ° a Z c a E U � a) U U m o m D. N -O Q 0 C C t _ o = m ° '`� c a p m '3 o n mmo o c a a E m � CL o) c0o2 E ac) m a a? g d ,� m 3m c co �a :3yc �' m m E cal 0 c N U y N >� °U D w m N 0 C a) _ m -ca d O O D I L d N = a >. d O N c Y O W O)-3 O _0 m N N O co ul C .a) a O co 0 s r 3 0 ° (° co 2- C 0 -O o o O y p O CO U U 'U co o o a) O)— Q � 3 J CO oa) 1° 0 = c v o c _m ui `1 co r m U w N N 3 co a) m U C U D N Naa)) mii _ 3 coma) Dcu E a) w CO -0 w v .- - v C c 3 CO d m o m E E a° g m o 0 E - 3 o E o 1 �, 3 m ,� • o 0 V. cmi :? c y d ° °) .,- 00 `� - E CA axi3L' N c ° � � 3 � v, 33 -m° °. 3 QN N ^ �' L 'UO 3 0 O m 00 U C pr m E � O r C N d O Q h. N V t0 O C .. 'p N �` W O M y 3 a C K l° C O .O-� H r o o o C O N j t a a) -O O) a a) U a) c m O ° w o) c a) -o o'.� C 0 :° CZ Z m � a-°i oU 4 aEi 3U •aNiH d ° ° - ° o `'�° y cr. E C U LO U '° a) C L O a N L.) N m m T.. O V 0omYcOaomma .. 1/4., y3 = ° > mo -- "CS m a) o m ° a w U yL 0O m m o o w ° a) 0 m w E a) 3 m _ m °3 c co::: �w m a 3 m c m a � a c ° d °? m mm ° ° Uo - 3 m mc° Yt g a.) S m T ° m O m co a) m a c ` a) 0 c a s ui _ m c O c a m L E Y .N a a c 0 aa) ° o E < tor aim CO a) io .E o .co o c y m — O. OO ° E o n c m 0 E _ a . m a) ' U 0. N C 0oa � mcmm > sdcmEoa° 2mma' � m C -vo c, o m m co C )i co m o m a o w _° ° o.- E C 3 do CO mw o c o E2mam .noin m YY o0 0.- s a O c m C = m p C _O y a @ a) 0 -C C O)N U C N C y N m O m C .w y 71 a°) a) in ° a co o d a) m '3 a) mo n a co E ° O- E m w ` coal) o c °) o m :4 o) um) = c m a m -Co p) o c E o E 7 _ C N a co C - o O) - 032 r C E c O .c N C 0C m CO W N r ` O °) CO U C) N O � 0 y co a) m E Cm OMr c J m a m 3 w ° t N ° a`) �c rnc)o -o y O 3 was 4 E E 0 ooat m 5 0 °z c N 0 a) a) a) 3 aa)) ao m cm) CO E 1_ co — o O m rno r Z Ol oar Q I- --F- H HOH T@3i) 2 ammo U3f N N (� :_. 01 j r-. m -o a w m °" air CO W y e-1 2 0w m " . . . . t 0w � a) '— 3 � -OF- a M 7 T IlM N C 7 M m it 0lLQ V CL O RN N E • . . ,o-- E mo ai o C N 5 = m N co co 3 O 1;10 "a a 0 N o a 'o ca a O a N c c m co a ti m .v a co o m a) O oa m a) c 0 d Vi Oa- m C c .o co 0 m a m 2 o E a) o Q in '�^ _ c _ °' aa)i c 3 p o) L W 3 CO C oL. a it c a) c co m Q > co -o 2 co m N O e n� a o r c o �j .c J C C ui C o �CD F-O m - co F—' O U O m ._ O 'O co O) O a 0 -O 2 E a) w '3 -o U c m a) co N 2 � J 'lp C d O y m 0 N C - 0 O a) m Po ',a E 2 -o m ° c3 m $ a) P. . m U o N & -O a) co .J- m sal -No rn m c 73 0 m 70 C o 2 -Nom C c c '6 c a J m E °- y c°i c c 'mO i - n ° a m `o a `- E a)C o c 3 CO) ` CO a L C N _° CO E C co m > a) 'o o' m a 'N a) a) a) H _—°6 O r 0 N m O) C a) C C m "O a) a) - "° r a) C co m O 3 ' m0 a a 'O 0 O _SC La m ❑ Omaa)) `o 2 $ -.is c c 0 4 EC 0 4-0 a) u x w 0 a) w m a) _ m 2 m is .N a) a) • " y .E V 3 3 a w15 _p a E c m a) •c m E m : -o o 0 -o a) y ° o a) av a) 2` c J o CO) O m c co .0. o .X o — a) 3 c p CO CO v) a) - am 3 E E o c '5 � mrn Ta 0 EL. E c we am ° 3 0 = a 2Caowc a a�ai o 0 a i> a) cc c t o ny c cN '):. in a E >, co -o co a a °-o m .C L m m -mO @ .+i Y OO _ C - C O a) '0 c O N m 0 -p N co O of zi r_, o O U m 0I m CO J > O) m O C (o C C O C o � Oamy -o m Y V a O o o3 a) c 2 m f V o $ _°o cm m d 5 a� ° aa)) C U m c) a) ac) • `m .; m D O n `�- O y a) N O O ' a a) O aN � $ ≥ a -o a ° ti y > 0a a) ..9x Eo coo a 03 C U) > a) m a) a] .O. Y 2 135 .. co 3 a) y M C O co 'o L N co U C V g 0 co a aa)i o m m a o a 13 o m o a°) m .3 a) m > a LL 3 m .. 2 = E m a C a) comp ate) a Y `� E 3 J E t E o y on m y c a O1 COr c m 3 y a co „Cl) E 3 0 2 o0 a 0 z _ w m a) a y 3maoo — 0c .3myN uTom330 = y � a Iii d .3oaOi '3 3 m u, a) a) T a_ c ~a a) .3 bc a �y D 0 U a W >, N 0) 0 n 0 c a) E ' N p 0 A ► m co o O y C C o - � N ° (N O C O` > = r) J o a) m u, o UR O c a O) 3 ° 3 ° a ° m m O -o E w y o p a) O O 'y o ci s -O 3 -O 0 2 E � cp-O ^ E E LL € O) 3 . -000 � m c c m p m 'E m a a C '° m M O O N o) Q ^) c 0 m r c co c am) am co) o c t. rn Q caws• y E o m 6 0 ° a cm O) rn >. O - o I- '0om E o E « O a) a) a) 2 ° .N .N o o a 0 a) 0 a O J v o c0 aem ca)c o a o a) 0 o LO y O OLD Q 3 ❑U y F E too o co Nr N D `o yinr FL- W TA N y C 7 w u y m LL • Q j C C a in o H C 0 d O O r 3 � LL • N O c w m C F ;�?� o ptr) p N -o p m 0 c m a ro JO C C co - 2 o) 1.) r.) N o m Lo 0 N co "O a C N 0 CO t 5ex'e i° E N a) a a c m C 'O co "' W co L r 3 m C C C N O U O C N O l/1 C!1 n, Q 0 0 Y fn O m pa L m N �l coO N ' N C O> a U. C N a 0 a) "O U o v 0 co o C ° E E p E m ap o � t o To O — C o N N E ` a U 3 m o O W aC E C .>...r) C o O O o a U N Np F O co O O ? a r-j `c_ O- C CoC O = N C O/ 0 F L a c E _• a o C m aa) o ° o c ma) -Jo Jo ° m a) 3 O -o mit a) of ° m ui OU c �' 2 c s 2a o cc m 0 L L CO O .� C L H N L E L > J 3 %° 0 0 a) O) a 5 m .3 C c U .Lm. .O o O JO "O a) N E 0I a 0 m U O 0 a) D 0 0 a C .. C O 0. o - o 70 -o U co C O 0 a) c m a) O _ CD 0 L V N 3 a -o L CD a N U a) U m t O N 3 N J C r n O m �= N .D a ` N C o No o O O 0 — L `o ' a) ` U m 0 m W p_.. N .0 .c 3 p '3 > L y L N a j o N C o N 2 c o 0 O) U = co O a) a) N 2 C -O C) a co d om E a) N X co a a) o N 0 v) O 0 0 C ui co -No C = N o a 'U U c= c m N O al E CO co c m 3 E m O J v o w d 'C N m a co J O tq a U a) U C p -O ▪ co w j N N a) N O C a co a) coco r0. CO n as C • p m •p o m N L X C O L O) a) cn C E m U m E O pia a z m �° h p m vLo. C o CD aN) m E C ot > N - roo yCw5 pL ony � N ec > c � •O To J N 0 t YOU N N N a 0 J .0 > O L at,- co .co = Cu. ri ▪ L N L O a) C C > m a N O 0 CO CO 2 2 U 0 OO C) y Q C O) 2 .p H U E_ COL O 3 y .t c a r) o o 0 C . M C N N m O O m C C N __ O a O ' �- a o N '� O C •N m N O m a) ...'2C) N a m N a N +? U O C co _O. a) C m C C N a) E E a N 0 2 > J a) O (o J .0 C C C a) L - co U d r y O C C0a"C a) N m U O m N J O O co in 30a) ≤ U C a) m m t) Cr) C a1 (0 C) N N O co J o d m a N J t6 0 C O O p) = � o �' m rLO, oo � L. Y = N `ot, a c > c � � oN 0 a m 0 3 0 2 a N p 3 o C a° ? m E = m 2 g▪ al J «a) sy J C C "N 0 0 0 0 3 "O m = N N ca a _ C .0 0 U N m L E N a m C > m V > s m c. C = in •=z 42 co 2 N o o o O o c o o a) y m C co a a) O 3 = N C J U "O -a -O p ° '5 N 'y '-'co e o N y : E E .0 a) 3 c `o co a) o c m m c 1' N m m r o m a) a L r U o m 2 N o) 0E co E N c 0 > O bbii a) O)J c c r N .2 `O .0 - Y 3 J N C N H d > E E O C — a) co f6 ▪ a) 3 0 CO -o N H 3 r0n w ,_ m ai 5 E Uo)6 E o a°)) E m c o) N t 2 F C w 4.0 Co w m -o E m e a) o a-a) v E � 3 � ca. aoi c O 92,„ 3 0 a o aa)) y a) t' a) a a.") O) U U .m. - -- o N 0 L J C a) 'O "O — m 0I a) 3 N ov c o CO 0 O) C ,k c = E c .>. •a) a) O N@` E m C L C -O CI C .c U E O v O- F c E m .'o o .� : a) J L o w a) a) C C p COO mm O '0 a) a) .N 0 .0 rnN a) 0 ° Cc oU f C mr. 0w C 2 C (n a) o x O m a) O — a) 0 0 E j oco L o N 'O a) O - F�7 MO U Q m m CM U w U > w Q (n 2 (A E a) o Z 2 O o f D m U Z o cn cP. a a x N N C co a S 5 5 Q E c s a. - a. a a W yri 3 CT N C C R C LL Q d 2 A N ,a 7 a) O �O C 23 co 3 � > 0 � a o a> 0 3 NO O r a w a) c ❑ E m 0 F o - c o U _0 -O _ a — a) co 'y 0 d J a) N o U E 3 y rn'> t o m w U a co Q =co -o c 5 ° a -o ° `0ig E `� a N E N o) )o N a) • o J 2 o E � � o co ll. y Q a NL 'O C)E UN C `U Tr N .. m o a) o � I 3 E .c > `e E a) I.T. _ y 'o a ° m o 0 m a) 0 o — a2 m e o c �" E N 3 a1 N N ' aA •.� YO a) w O1 �-Oj- co E a 2 .ro. aoi a> 0 NoL 0 o m U N c 0 �' a1 a) C �co 'O O) a C "O a O N N a) 0 C 2 -- c N C V U o >O J O) co J co E N a) t m N d N N a O a) 'O o f Z' a) w O O d C 'K N a) a E) O J 0 C .� a) , N J a) N o O O O .b a) a3 O)"" C a) •—o Y C ≥ U E >a) 2 c f 3 a o-o `o)t a) m e a n) m 0 m a moo c °� L E `c° r y E aci f aa) m c .c co J io 0 J O 0) m a) a) a .C — to C m 3 2 co o) ~ S S c c a o 'o •'; o .N a) a co a) owcc mmo 0E > o . an o u co E U2a) o a?) >. aa) a) -c E w e CD o ° -0 Y a --°o co F EM.to. �° a a) co a) m m w N c5i o m �uoi S S o o 0i )° 'o a) 3 = o o J c U c o .o O d 0 c C N 3 ? o co '3 .-. .x >, a) N. C a) o -NO N 'O a) coca -o o co U 'o m 0 'a Z E co c a a�i cr c °' COMM r o to O .` l- _° c a a) J C EI a) — c c o 3 a3 °o Z' a) 3 3a d c O m ° N o — -o ti �, aai ` a o 4 c p Ca c 3 m 0 0 - ,°c_'o = a) E m N ; m E 'o O) U _ J to c bp a) o E N — _ ❑ F O) N w y y C C C y C a > a to [ a) c • a 0 -a 3 3 a m � w �° aoi c 4.) ow c co m rno °) L _a) Sc" o V O N C 0 )o• a C N p m 3 .0 o 0 -o 0 y O .0 0 co O .O N o U a) m .o c o G a D .N a) o m m m ao o f . a N -Nom y -o E 0 0 w -co 0) o a m r v F. m m E E L--• c 5 c o o c o 0 0 1 E 1O a c C al N L N co .? n a1 to -0 N T N ._ C L .� o .a3> co o) co yo E o w a) c ° o0 '- Eo 0 .) m -orE a o N C a t O o m 3 y -o a) Q d m@ v, a) w 3 O �° �? m m o N .n U o m ._ d 3 a >, I o 0 43 o a .O-0 a °? "m y a ° o � � o o y C .3 aaa 0 Es a) a0 a m 0 3 . ).. CO 3 . cc 7) 4- '3 cHNm coa) ya ad oa m a c - a> a) o c o o_ c o y o m E3 cO c 0 to in- ° ` oat0 aE >° ° o 0 3 a) N m 0 a> 0) a> a) ' J Y ) EE C U y a) Jo 0 I- .N a Le, � r (C Q L 'E J O c J C E 3 >' _ C U a) N CZ a o a) Co N y m C N c N U O a 3 N xo N 0 >� a) N O O U C .r a a) to a'^ o O_ O O D)N cu CL __ __ > r > O COO it- to E � 00) moo- m C m m = c � 3 30 o Eo > a`) > o d A-• E a -o cc) E 'a co a m - & c 0)I_ ?U c o � .o a y E O 0 N o )n a) o ` N c m N ° O 03 c O N 2 . 0 U a N :O 00) c., c 3 N U ≥ ? C — r0 w E c a> c O U n n o) e a) op 3 a) aJ o 0 a ≥ o m " u1° o 3m to o ° cmo � .E silo' a> 0 a>C m E d c 'c a) — a) = ____ o 0 a .No 'O J J to c r co c tot a) a E N 92 0) m 76 0a N N N C 3 CD -0 O O U X 0 a) U .o > O 2a s8 a m a -o F- . aN a m N 2 'o r oo_ o '3 cco 'a N E 0 a y ≥ O > > moo_ E E o I y m r E 0 E � °' 0i- H C m c o ❑ t) o o . ow C o o r. : rn a • • • W U a0 O Q Ito a) co UmmQaw F- o to w F o En Cl) N a a a Q U 00 a a a a a a a a a W y CO 3 N • C O) 7 M0 LL Q a, ` m .fl 0 J o '0 w a 0 0 . Na) -0 K a) C 2 • Y .0 a) L N C a7 0) E a co ° 0 0 a 0 O a N o as m O O -O 0 a — CO .L.. 0 0 m ° a) E E N .c w ' ° o m I W N 0 aa)as CO V E o E > C m C 0 0 -A C c O L (n m ° m y O E E y LL aus ? 0 o Z _ _ U O E 0 L - C a c O N L a i w L O O N CO 3ta - 0 C YO ' O J E Y 3 O c J 2 m N as O 'U m c N -o 0 0 a J a) y a) L a) .O c E .Y C m a) O) -oC N -o a) O) 0 a) C a p m 0 C O C .N O L E Q .N .o -00 m w a m C 3 C 0 0) °� la a ° 'O 0 (0C O 03 2 aci o m E c 0 p � ' ao 0 m o eT � � �° E ≥ a aEi N o a) 3 -6 Vo �o o j E t 0 0 m 0 N m o m > b 'UL C F L C � co CO °� .N m o C 3 E m aEi '3 0 E £ N O 2 E '3 .L. N N U o 0 c c 0 0 m z '° J ,3 r N N O O C '- O m N N '0 -o 5 c o p o d 'E -0 a CO or c C > ° 0 o a EOa ° c o a m E 0 E a ° ° o 1:i2 o o E N m co E C O m a) m a`) m ° p > t c = •- p .N 0. m `) L J L -0 E co — n a H > C O C E Y O) U 17 cr O ° O m 0- 0 O a1 U o _C N O N• (�+ U J CD J > 'E > .N O . E - m U O 0 O O O C 0 'N U ' C ` N ""'" L r 'C N OE c y m O E CO m al .. J - O c ca (Oct O N N o 0 'E "3 m E p ° L y 0 >, O .L.. .L. -O c 2 a w e c° a ` c c L o a -> E m m m 0 U 46 a o a 3 a >, N C 0 `LO, o 'N U is ` w m ` N m N V O. 0 >, o> Y H a Q O C m N 2 2 m O L — a) L m° [a O E a) a coo a) O -o E E 'm n a to' o n ce 0 § ` co °J 0 m i.. 0 O n 00 ' O C m 2 U C a) O 'O a) H 2 ° E a m 0 ra > Jo '� U 0 L co CD .C1 O c c co 0 .� N 3 O O m a) E `' t cu > > L a' m J t a E c) 3 O O 0_ C.) da — d o> U L N ` m E L L L J ui •J u) U D .p `2 -o , O m a) c w z o m u) ° = >. o a> -O a`a) o — o a a) 3 -0 CO 3 'a w ° C N °> .w ` w z o r V `°> E a v> ° U �'o ' m D m 2 tel Y a) L 'C O O E m a) m `1 O a >, N U L _O O) C N ° E 0 a U > O N Y C O m a) 0 J c Vl YO o .. .c E E = a) m m y m 0 a> o E 2 C N a> >, a ma 3 O y C U _p 0 y N o y ? O O w N a> N a) EO a NI o N O C u) a a O J 0 co 3 0 a C o 0 0 E > 0 0 o a 92 .c 0 — C 0 o a 30 0 N ° o o > 'c 0 U N a) :O .0 C c> C N N N a " oI C0 °) a 17 ` N L C ` rn m t>.: 1= r 0 3 E C c E a m we 3 0 0 > N 0 o c m m C a a) > o Ef IC' t m C (7- O .'. > > O 0 N N O N C 2 J o> m H 2' Q w .O E Z o U o a z w w m o t U d > - U — .- E a) 0).. z No 2 F°- . . . F 2i' 3 . A. . Al. W yli CO p) N LiL • J M IN c I. c cu ao r eD !L Q 7 - - .O+ C c V 0 1>�. o eta C 9 C d O d N O (*VC .N 'o co — ° C C L e o O 'O C 0 Fre � � .6-2 w0U. a` MinW .a 3 0 a> • a 2, o N m E co0 m m c N c a) co .m .3 L m w0a 47)c coi c 8E a) a a � 3 a m E : @ o m e �.0 m m O m in 0 0 .m. a Y N y co a) 'O b >. O 0 a 0 L- a 3 0) 3 E N - N N O O a)-E �f1 ,(/� m JD o c c/1 `° m U -° w O C •L > O 0 ,„CO 'ul U 3i1 ; co• E c a) °c °• z a o� o 7 c m fn c m a._ N o 0 C .N E _ asO Ty N € c ° m c o m 2 z = ° ° ° ° ° w ° c6 c-i rw Oa1 0 � > .c• N � C Cu o O C '- co O U N 5 -0 U > '3 E 'E °c m a c c � U 10 a-0 2 cagy C O r o c co E o C >. ° > v o co - .a3 L _ a) w CL 0 E3) m ° c °) m :o ON aD mwC a O •' 3 CD ._ -,- C O m C m w tll a) ___•S w r> d _ N m C ° .-as E co a m o 6 a c .. 3 m p ° '≥ o a�aico c° °) y o °3 s g � a) � o oc mUm Loo) o > ° � mE a3 � o omc o co co R. To O N :- .O o a m o D m C m O > c o C L m o o c o E ,_ Lw >. _o 0 ≥ c. o> � z a o C 2 E ° aim -o c°� a) --• o c a � N -o ° a) a) � � a 3oc°i - O) o c) a 0 C N E N N O C y l9 U °) o N 0 > 3 C 4-0 p E c — m m CO . N _C E N � m ° a l`0 -o •z` m y .c N O 0 CO 3 c yom m 0 • y a am � @ ° '; io m o ff ° co ..O.. � ma ° m c° E c N :4c 0o n a) C E y a .L-. O o a O m o 0 o 0 — Cu N W _ o o) co .0 C L a) m E -0 O) a > • 00 J r CV CA c6 O 2 m o C N 0 ... C a) L Co O — N C m O • 4 m N Cu .o o o p m p ° ° M c O C .- = Cu n O a) ° c co • co m ® 2 m U � o) oar ::. o Eca E2 ° a oEoa 0m > o -0 _ ova E 2• :° O m y o t p o ° o ° m 0 E oQ n o f m o p m c a> o � co co )n m >, 3 't mc°) o o co" 0 a c a> 33c a) `o nl -p :° a ° co m c a) -C • > co m .L.. 0 .L. m w -O O O N 0m _o o O O c o m c c L a m O C m a a W E J (` E co r Vl v) -o C J -co E o lc c m foil 0 V m o '0 O O m r m N N >> 0 0 -O U U ca C N 3 U co m J a Al ci° y a m CO LL L = O -0 C c c U O O N w N = N C m arm T m 03 -05 o m ra y to o 3 D CL C co . .c .....3 N 0 'O 0 L w N N m N N a a> ≥-o 0 0 3 -° = rn o a co c Cu m m 3 0 2 O 0 a y0 r" Oa ° 3 - C .. co O ` m may .. CD = m -O O > ° m 0 U 2 .0 co m J -O _O _ N o t r — a -O 0 C y c c .o) a) 2 ° L ° E Cr) a Cu o c or ;I) -- O` E N 'R m It = co c ' = U -p O m a S] �, m :°5 ° O N m c a C N :C m2mE 0 o • ? o ° S Es `o m o = o co m .- ° m 0 m` on0 m ° 0a 3 o• c@ � 2EC0 p 3 �° m y m E m ° m m o m o 2 0 )n Cum e o> L fn m 3 U m = - c c o) ° c co= o) to , .°` , 6 o ° c °) c 3 a) a ca • d aco 3 m Y m E c 2 a 2 3 aa)i cT m � L 0 E 0 o .o 0 o U co .E m °"5' ° m C -° m e C O m a' m ° ta) 2 0 � `oo a oc ° c -o E o3 no . y o ° ao 0 ° U a) m " c o O O E C C m Cr) E C m 0) m m 0 (n .c C Y (n a ° a U ≤ coc O. 06 > C CO p 1� raaa 0 0 mCc of 00 .00 -00 rn � � U aQoc° Zm ¢ `o c- 3 CO N is M a - g - a a a CO d p U W y s of C = N m 0 m • = J M 6 m y c m J`'G m ; W ^ lLQ .C 0 A C " ° m « m 'c es m m m m m r w 'en .0 7tvpvca) c I- wOlia` mcnw 0 °. a w • co C J 4 O O O O) Co OU L U C = C N tq U N '° c 2 N J a rn O 2 0 -c 2 .a O 3 N C N i- E O` a) T o co C O C c ° c � o cL a) -0 d 3 m m ° c .2 2 L Y a co O c`a _m as a c4 O 2 B .O O O N (./) -c > o g .E 2 c cri aa, E 0 J o ~ OLD oV M 3 L E N E N N y O a m f/) C J 7t, O C -_ O O .3 a f`0 C Y N N 'p O)N U O CD Q ° 03y E _ C O) O coS] m � mNa N '� " C O m m a m o . J c 3 E C co U ° E Z E O m M U O co O O L O O O N m1° ya •o ° E m o 8o z =° 3 £ ac N m cm ° U m co L O E N `1"; = N O) m r 0c ,',5 .5 m a ,c m L yw c P > o) o > 0 2 O1 O O` E 3 c N 0 .C w .a U .O C ,-c fN ca O O m . — 0 2 >i m N Q C C C c m a .L. .� p O) N 0 > c E 7 -° in N@ co -o a U 0 -00 y C N N v -00 co 5 0 L 0 O) .L. ton 8 so a N J y - E 0 N x N N c)LO w m c C -o 3 -O = O E °' J p J = 0 -d c N a Sc a c > Jo co m -00 -O N O co a-° 3 O 'c CO do � ° 3aN � E ui `° m 0) O `o) 'o iaa)) E c0 >, 0 = ao -0 ° Y = O O U L a> 0 J 0 E U E Z o m m 3 CD w E CO a 3 N w 4. E E O " E o ° 180 = U E O U = N 0 N ° 0 O L co U O.N m -0 C' C1m '3 U 2 N J ° C -r,;' C �~ •3SDa a v .t P O = c. N � N co C O 'C_ O .ym.. _ N • m ° gym Lam ` o) Q � • � '` oU E y me � 3 � O co .O J a) o -0 -8 'O m r ° 0) • C O = @ m L Y N V. as N N L a_.0. C O d .O• O L ° d O N = L ;O O F E CID C 0 W. E `-- 0) co U '0 �a ° 2 ° w0, O C O rLA L �' O to the- [ j J N 'O O 3 G N o o 0 = O LO E OO '00 O is= 0) o c O 2CNA m _ c O 0 3 O ° O a m N O ° O L C L E N t - .O1 �i o C.O ° C m 3 J N CO > O O N .m. 0 cr. C a CO ' co m -0 = 3 a) t c of E C c p o o aci aNi 3 03 � E drn w py3o 1] J ._ O r? = m EU c a co a> 0 Y " „-�„ a O O -O OW 'N C U 10 D y J _ L uj m `O O ant O ' CO -O C .0. N C E@ .020 .0 t'y 0 o N a3 N O C a . OL, 3 CO 0 4_ O co " C0 0 -o 'o mO ea a L O O N -E L 12 O m C 'O a N - 2 O L "O U J a .O N 0 = = C O O O co E W C U .° '° '° y U O m O o c a > m O C m T C C C O m d m )0-i aLO TU a) ..8 aJ .O co -O a Ol m m O 1] 0 a0 3 N5 N C O CD L r a O O C C _ m y 'O ca c3 = _ � 0a> 0a) E o O O O "mo E 3 '- m �° p)� m ≥ a cu cu o — N . L U N E E y L a_ T -0 in 'v, .J=. J N m - m c a C = co > O a C — N c CD - E O .— co c = ° . E a) 3 m 3 m c c co `m - m m °c c a a aE) o = o 2 0• u o) O 7 3 m O E m ate) °) g ° m a m d r 'c m >, E • •C 3 OI y m ° 3 3 m N O a O a m > € N N 00) J ei 0 m L O L tom'NO O `o = E S � U m 0 tH m O y0 CO N U a O N p > s C O° _O L O. C m ow O N E. .-T. 0 N O a —°' E aDi •-w J Z N E O C T 2 „ U C O E J 0 C N 0 .N„ a co co i_ ow? N O 7r y N 0 y a an L c0 O L N 'O ` O a N O .O O 0 Cr 0 Q 0 y m J O J O a C).3 a co -0 m CO O 0 t N YO 3 N m 'o co m o aN) o C 3 O o 2 3 C C O 0 O at C O) = O N N N 0 '° a w .° 0) 0 C -O 0 tl ° c8oOmcE00ac m m c r r o � N 3 a mEa> Ocrc O m0 '° ' aO C E 3 m m a) m > m y 3 c m c -0 (inc 7,5 C o c c J E E o c o p o - '= > > > m J U = ,N N O N 0 [a N m o 5 la 3 -c O o m J J J or) U O X O - a "O cooaa� — Eo coEw ec z o o U I— =o Q Z w ~ ma) mcEcm amooc00 :. raEa) Om > O � o g O fmmo o OO E2 ccCC ° IL- . . . . OUa o � dnC0 O GA If) N tH W 7 aT O -O 0 N C 0 T.a r O •C lL Q aJ g a7 C ` Uc'• i_ - - ... O O m O 0 ,„ y 'V Y s- 'O L 7 O -O C O C ca t C .. a) C C O ao E, w OLLa Mtn C0 .°r N •o7,2 p 'C .� C C N J m m Ct J "OCD 0 U a) C -co o N .a) U .0 E c) m a) w CO m 00 m 0) C 01 =p w O N a0 a C ..o. c t a) m 0 C 0 0 0 a) 0- N o a) m N a o 0) O .L.. Lv 0 7 U C CL J co N '� i° c oc c o a c c ' n co aN) 7 ° 'o Nc E Le c o) '§ y m � 3 °c_) O) .S c3a m d :c c E ° ° 'm a a ' E 0) '6 ,_ � y C N O .D N N a) (a U/ V) O N C -p m 'O N 2-17c 5 L C -p m fZ a `mow CO c a, o 7 O = LCD N N0• J E N C CO (0 C — O U "O ° ° O L 0 m f/) C N U L j c a) o) 0 .0 a) a) ° ; — .N °) m .• ≤ c >i o y j 7 0) 2 J N 0 m N 0) E 'Ip N N E- E U C L CO U1 0 . C m a) a1 -c o 0 E c E m ui a N a) m .� coy m m c o =7-°E .y J y > , o) a "' y 0 0 '3 N E .E p m -0 a ' _ J w m O O V a) 0. -J 0' N 'F) ≤ U E N N y C O am 70 -6 ` 0 m `o -o Eo J ..> ac) of NN 2co O .. p cocootE a) '0 € .L.. "c = a . ° m O N 7 U m m m 3 L a) p N U m Y a) N C C c) J J a 3 .� c) N L -� L 3 w O. 0 a _E >' 'E 2 • c O t J C a) U 3 Y• o j 0 a g o 0 3 � E ° Y J '- c I:he'o C co_ 3 .O N 0 01 0 Y 7,2 E la )a N t a C E a t- _.> > o .C N J c 2 21 a) N N a o > 0 0 NO N 0 L J .. V N C t L O E ill 3 m 0 o a °co m > o Joy = a .c E 0 m j a p_ la a 0 cco m y 0 E y y 0 N N J 01 •� ?� U 1p C - N m d U C O N• L N U 0 c m - •a) �C 0) O a a) y m Eo omm w c a) cc xm >, Ea rn S+' L N O N a N "c Cu J 5 a) N 00)0 C z LO M O O O r) t a) m C N O in o N O CC. N 02 N = 0 N 0 0 $> a N "00 J m m N C -° O 0t U j N a c co m a, c c1 >. t O L U) o 0) m C -C 0) 00 = C C Ca) L 20 a) O O) 2 a Y N a a > C a) CC coal m m f, C J al Z > > 'u -cEc c0 Nm cc0 > oca oa J 02 — CO C m 0 0 D 0co L Xa m C .O. CO T -0 co c L c). a) N E E E m N N ' ` t N N `1 ` O N t ` N N 7 c 7 -O -c N c N Cu O U 0' D0 y 0 -0 p_ a o YO 22inO2 , 0 mc Yo N �O N "O g E co m 0 N N 3N N a) C 01 `1 c°j m C (� C C __ w J J =2 O C 0 L J a1 O)E O 3 y+ e N N D won 0 o .a N > 3 N E a N J co ma m _ 0 co C o1 m co 0 ≥. m N J a) Cu ® m E EJ a) T, Em U a) > a) ° c � N `) w d m N E _00 E � Elmo E .. - aYa) C C ?� an C O C J C c o co N -0 L O c O V O .5 m m o O ≥ ≥ coo m 0 CD L ma m p c m , C u! m 0 c m U >O C N y m . m a a 62 C .C >i L rn � L. f3 foam` a° Am8m2aDa > 3 ✓ Y_ O OA En y al in 7 • C 0 M ` LL Q a) 0 0 _N J H w 5O • _ , : kC cole j = f o — 0 CO �Ifl� ,o co \� \ E f co 2 WCii —X32 ca ) ( \ \ 0 ] I % \ 0. , f0 0 ( — t a: o _ _ - { E k3 « \ \ \ \ \ a' \ • r 45 \ 2 / G ) , 2l •= 2 17▪ 1 ) {/ f / { { i { \ f _ V. ! E § ( a) 2 \ 2 � � cri` 7 i. O- a | ` ) 2 / \ a - Q ® ® ••• =-- ® k } / > i >. ] - _ - { 3772 2 f _ e = ac6 � ) \ \ / ( / \ ) / / \ \ { \ \ \ _ - � - - ) / ! , $ (0 _ « { � \ ) k ) } k aa ( / = € CE2 . � � � / � k � f ) k- l ; ; 3fet e ! | » i ( § � ! § ! > 2 = a a - f ) ) . g ! ) 0 2 ° # | § { ES » 201222 § ( k .E � � ® \ \ \ k # � 0 E.0 § • ) / { f § c - ` ® c - 0o ` m 2EE2 = a ! co00Co } § f / k ; ! ) ! } § f / f / \ / k § a $ 7 § % ! ) f ° tta' co cO - § 2 ] ] 227 / ; 7 § { [ \ ff 5 = co mom < § 3 ; § 7E } 37 / 3223 } ] s \/ § - - - - § 2 � il �) Cr, 2 ) ..Cl 3 - ; co 2 IEt � -oo • o a � � m 3 F C 2 ya 0 o)� cornraEo .c m a) o 0 p `�5 m a) cm o c a c a) a) p a) "° o a) ° o = y -o onE3 > m a a4m � p -mo il wm a 73 m-o -°a c o N c o o 0p 0 0 c c = _o p o c :o as o m a U m a) _ r, � � '° aE31° ac) n. maa)) co E cm me oy c � Z 3c Y G -cp n O ._ m O O W o of_o y ? moo c o m ° N co y c c O m o 3 3 y � N C O JO CC Y "O Q .t.. O cv O p :� R! E Op)L a) O ° c m 2 0 U -Cu) CI O C CO O O m o a) � Q ° o � c .o � .� � a 3 — � � o Nm U Na Q� 2 z -- S C J > o m a) C'CJ N a1 G U r c o f a s m. — O u0i N U 0 0 ,_ N -° O -.6. C W U O O CO J CO m a/ 0 X a-o ° >, m ` ii=m E CD U O c d U CU 'O )O a U c m a-o a) o c o C N L.. ° CO O p 8 c c Nd N1] TA' G o. U F- O N m a) • 2 � c 5 _ CO mm ° E a°, U a Ooa; � co2 cp �? my 0c a) a) T. U ° aY caQ. m• CO 0 1- 'oNa 20E -aa) 3 ca c) o ¢ ac o . tea) Oa) a) LOy $ oo) 3 c � '5o ° ° ccmi c ° L. rn-0 o ° LcJ a0 a. co -.2 ,2 ._ U N 'O J m m G .a). ≤ "° -O o)... J. a) 504- 2 w o N 0) 0 .0 -8 -, o) 7-3.- co o a) 'O - o N =p 0 C >' to t `=" w U Q C 'No 0C -500 (03 C Et O N -0 C U E y c o a> cc Et m O-°tis E c ° to)f) 00 " E E V °C Et N O j CO ca a 0 U cc0 U a co m oo o 0- O2 � 0 U Om o)0 3 m c 0 N OL0 m GE_ Si as a° ¢ Eao om 3 Ycac) c ^ a` ° 00) o a a)) OCO co a.. V W � a0 > is m E )° � E ≥ Jos co v aoc2 a2 a ° ° c o � `ooc EO o ' act 2 . a) y \ O ° c J T0 2 o Q nTo co m w c7 N 2 a) o a 'O - c — a) t O � oEo to' carp c -° � 4 Op3C = � mo 000 NC. o z A O o)p o U c o)— m O °? 1° O W 3 -O "O 0 iat ` N n ° E IX O U c U O N m O O >..°. - O C Y ° )j p o O LO N O N = = 045 .0 - 00 ,- .-0c0> n o t U O L_ o m co H v O C° - � c o) _c00 ,2 `o U - c O c O O • O 2 m c y ° E 2 a 2 o m tic a) a) c c Rai m c� U a- •To vi av) Ec acEcmc ° n 0 CO CO a o EO m0m mac rn M -oOc = ° ooO m - mE aCF- - a) ac a' � 3 cmm o � mm > o o U m .° ai `m3 Eo .- 1 0i) gy• ° a) nU v E p a — m 'U o = o x C .O -°O a a Q W SD a2) C J O a) m C°J a) m Y O. U g 3 m o w o a o 0 ax) m w o Q -o a)to o a) co i- t-- co 2 a) 3 CD U) y m >, PP id. w N'E L N co t0 D) O a -co 3 0 E y m 20_ a) m C N O C fn y ° >.ay amd `� �. a) Nm hoc dal ma to o ° c ccm m a 2U a anccaN s2 � om '5 a� � � � a � � m � m dW � m � CU U) -0 y coa-y a) 3o 0000 G —_ a) ca in 0)4? .C >O OE a S �cp ooam t0 cco - 3 .. 2 ° ca) $ ate ro .0 "1= o f -o m m `o E QO o p `t Y ° aa>> o '> 'o U ° a) ° ...= d U - ` U N ° a N N = b o Uo) ° m Z. mma) `pE Sm °) o � 2'�E. °) m NG2 -a MO YO O a C . C 0O 22 13 ca a) w _a 'o S! t :� 000 ° cc w a) •E m � i- wG m >• omc°n cmU ° = NJ fOAc r NcC m a) a-0 NH a> a) O LN a ° N 'Eac m 0 a-° n N 0 3 N 0 U a). .G " c coo c 4,..- > c £ d C U C a) 5 '5 °x' 0E ° 7 > aci '°t '-`°-° a0Ec° UcNa°i ° mEymoar o 223 `om 3 'mo7) -oE = a a) mE0oo ma `oc o ay Si) c a Y N lha C N 'C o = O m a J E a N m N ? W .a). E 0 U ° a) c U OS CO Q ° m Q o a > o co ], a) m °' ` a) a c. d `= o O N a) E a) oua) .c o � NoE , mm a) c 'c , c3 a3) c 0 = 3 <3 .N m0a o rj fH E � 'o � c_ axi :: ° v ~ `" > QU .n � v) � 2 Qvap no0p in N W Ti; J 0 N 0 j CO D7 0 lL Q cu y C { J v It .fl a) N o .45 N as N ao el re m m 03 M S d 0 cc • 0 « c a ° m ° o a 0 ° °� 'o = ai o t 3 -0 2 c `o_ o c0 > 0 CYa) _oo ° J _ 'ac y o o � 2 c -a c Y a tri co m U 0 a) CO U O c a) cp C O J C a tO E CU N 0 O 0 a I iv) - ° t-' Coc Eo 0, `o o3 co N ,,-ii, 3 > -o ma a 'a) ' > c `m d W T W a) a) _0 1 0 O d C 0 U ` CU E 0rN o — E 'j W N t..c. r 'y 1� i1 d > 0 O ▪ N 'p l0 "o N Pe E ® c N0 `o a 0 a c c• o' N C C - m .U � ° OC3 � 0 ° Do r0 0 N 'o .'r -- CO ill 0) O) CO Cu a) o ro 4 o .c0 25 -co- 0 ° I— o '— ° c -oU my �0 0• O >` V N CD co j 5.- Y C E o •a) a) a) ca N ` -' D .0-« • O1 0 U c U >` 0 .a o C n J U N "O , d .- .C Q p O O - w -C o E ca E N -C N U° O 0 0C L J a) w o w 00 00 r 0 J Uo a a3 UOc co 0 _ CO MO c N tl)Y 0 CO .G C 0 — :N .C V) U C U a) c w _° d 0 0 0 U o m a) o Y J a1 E < S a) U U a CD >" c O E c ct 1 N Q O L p 0 G 0 0 N U -O 0 a U O O) 0 0 -0 o -0 -O O U C O J o i_ 'a C 0 W J C CD O C al = O N y co Q) O c Y a7 J 0 m N -0 U r .0--. C 0 c T E N N E y a1 v a) C O '> 0 c co a _oac) o E aU .uc aJ6 c € WV o) 3jE J - m � 0 N E o E moo o 7, -0 J o f u, c `o a.> -0 w c u, pen 09 c _ m c c E Etri G ma o t° r c • � y � > a0g 3 � ' L ° ' N v 0 .0 N y N Q a O N >, N N O w 0 o. ao m ° a-o 00 o a) DE 2 .E .j Na 'O wpm (° a ' 0Ew `� P ° E mao cEa .00 b co E 032 J ..- c o °) t c t a) '6' .3c 0 _c c° c a) y CO a) t5 E E � � m ° > � m -w ago E o w C - < w r ' En = ° — _corn 0 c u o. JO co o m s- pOt go a) E 3 ma c co o J -° R ` Spec' O `5 aa) co- U o .E — O `) 0 O N m N a "°OO N N J a' T m � L~@. N d .Y a m aJ F lY C N N N "O O C U c -° ° T > N (a C > G O C N N R a) a m C co O) U c>, E E 0 > C U p p- 0 .y H bp y mEt a) 0f° v, .00 !? >' `° mcr yww CO ▪ a' 0 - a) . lc 0 N x c co- cc; — :-= -- (0(0 Eo o c 0)o c a CO a) 0 -0 0 T 0 U O 0 00 0 0 0 Ego 9E -c-' 0 =„ 155 - c a LO 0 a: ` a ° f ° 32m ° c �' nEt° 0@anwUd -0E - a) ° C C '- 0 aEi 0000 CUC O a06 o02 coo a) co )Ctl O a `- co -.m a c O 0 c a7 c o 0 a) o a°) o '°o c 'c C — AC O aCi3 N a 0 N O Or 0 O G !0 c 0 0 G C) L CO J U a:_ CO U 0 -O a) CO l0 -O ca .- ;7, . 2' r w • N c U O 00 a) E "o T c m m L O a 'o ° 0 c p w p z a a) m0 d U a ° m C0w m _I > d m m w c ° 2u) o cn CO N W N cst, a) CO co el u 7 C J rc) J O N {L Q . N 'p s° 'a 4 0 coa) c et CC N r 2 2 O o c y • I— ° a) c V) (6 yC a) C ~ a a) a) N 0) OJ .c11 co C 3 'O a) C C _ 12 y '0 0 J m E U O N NC�/ m L ._ a> m E ° O ≥ C ti 'L" i W 3 m o o ca>i -o 0 o c c :? c O J ° O J 6 a) ° "O .y. U y N N y A C m N U a) Y L a) E a) 0 'O a T.0 O H E o a "O 0 0 O C Z _ o c c a> m a 0 (0 O U .. O m > O V) 0 m �' aci m y a) C c° a -° 0 c O> a U 'C -° 0 E C a) 0 a) c co a) O O a) O 0 U a s y y c c o cc 3 E o a> > o `2 o ° ° o = a a Eaa)) ° a a 2 0 t° c co a m a) a °) • 4) o 0 a) >, a) O C C ' 0) 0 .L.. .C 0 a) J U �' C °'U C > N a) a) a) U a3 a) as 0 >.c c (°a c 2 0 .O ° ® '3 'C a) @ a7 c a— a/ O 0 -o D E C ra a) mw 3 ow °) m cm ° _a y 0 E (0 U 0 — U .O a) Y 3 co 0) C (a -C E 0 C a cco 0 � Do a) c CD > - - 77. C J o a) (0 (0 .0. U -° a) a c c y a `o m• -o y 'y 0 y C m c a) 0 A O wNm -00 'v.; '- o o y EE to a) O E v. 0 c y r 2 0 0 c a m m :. 0 c) co a-5m 3• O o .. L 'C C o a a o -C CO CD of Vi N U N C N 'y a N J _ 00 4f0 2 0 c c ` o a p f: is tai o c 0 C +, O2E y of 02 g ° C * o o? E = E > O) co �- N C 17 c,_ C 0 C L D N C O"yO N m C E c m m -E 0 a) 3 n m 3 o a 0 > o 'C o f .O) a>• at -ctia 0 2 0 0 O 0 a> U) y c c a >. y - a> co ≥ a> o 2 3 m CII' ° c 'U aJ. IC E o — n U 0 2 m oo s .- c m `,G c m y C ° ° y ° .O 0 L 3 C L... 0 0 (0 CO C E _ N N V C CO a! O 0° CEO J 'a't O CM 3 OW -0 C U CO .C -O 0 O. CC c`0 • c0 J L.. N l0 N E O L Lo C t .O Y o OM ... :EP 0 _ 3a) 0c y C N la C E c a) o .Oa a) ... J -0 m r C a) C a1 = = 0 ` m m 3 c = r. 0 M 0 E `0 w c 0 >, E = T g o y a y m � •�• 3 C o> o ° 0) a ° a 0 0i o)L L O J D `) ' a) 0>0I c>) A.' c _ a F N 0 N N O) 0 N J J C 4) > U C 0 C Ali) > `00 - 0 ma) a ya) .≥' yC 003 a N U L C 5 'C 0 m N C C o N U O Y (6 moo ° N :: 12 oo ao c Eco .0 c 770 ° H 0a`) 20y r rnm .292E c0ia 2a n cO -0 2 LL oam to av2 - ° ° i- QaQ - co -a a s a a U .0C Z (°.) 2aE _O N W y H a ca _ N O t0 9 J M • C C C LL Q ,� a) N a) o a) T En H te XL to" aK d E C V) )i W • co C d, oa) 00co o —>.. . . 03 o I- 0 'y C J c o o a) St^„.. r m E .L.. C o N 01.0 ` N N '6 wp a 0 a Cuocmm oEo zi r ° 0) m O a) t< r: m p (D .- O a) C O C O a C ..... p1 C J m xa" ta caai3c mo .. Q2 Jos 3 L CO Jr) - O m 0 2 a) U w c O �p J 0 m m N o aa) E No J o V >, E ?, W wa13Lm raE ° m Nac mo .. , m o yam o t, a) 0 o1-o c 30 ° ELD ° N aa°i . a) E T x a) 'a `O O Nas E 2 y oc � � `o 2 N T¢ c CD a CD 0 m = o Ur5mE a) -0 -o as � a� c a) co : _ � 3 � cc m � 0 0 ,- oca°i Y 2 � � �y gem om � o3w � ° m w '5 o 3 Em � or a O cJo0 Uo � E > o o cc=_ca.' � .m y o 3 a) o o ° >. aa'i s cc; a) L 0 N 0 U m E O ; 0 0 H C C ° m p a`1 ° ≥ .o "00U pc c ti a. Oa y 0 'C a1 N C `1 U O CD C 0 O ce — cO C C O m O N ° -° a) 'C C N ma`) a3o Qmc m '3m O— r a) 'O ni E_ Ea"i '> o 2cL. 5c -- LO o `o ., -0 ° E o a N � co a• _CO C m 0 C .7 C 0) 3 E • c J w o ao m r„- y w m o- r y E Z` p U U O m o ° . G d 'O J co E c moo °' o doL — mNr .o a 2 y E C '0 ,L„ CO a) L F- J a1 '≥ U N tq "0 ° m = 01 CD O C _ c o f .L.. 0 C O > O o th ..— m a- O O N V N p • c y,c .°C) Ya) mEcuai co_- co -O c a) .c m E ••' 11) a o w m ¢ Y ° m o U ° cu a/ E E E a rn p ° i 00mC 0) y a°1c .a5 -o03 'O a) a) a IP C1) O w o co a c 2 J E = U 0 a m U .. a a a .o N N 'C TO a 'J 0 0 0/ y u1 U d N N J co 0 c0 'L" >, m 3 w N gO) 'O ≥ 0. O 0 co 0 o 0o0 ca) 3 uC E 0 0 0 ° ea O[tea 0 m m5 co° 1° `w_ 23 y C 0 m N -o N c O a p D) C W N U CO '00 C y y 2" = a) ca) a) a; o o °) m co E E ° ,.E o ° as o` m0cmt J0 .. . ° y0 (* lot y ao o rm ° a) a c .�. E c0 2ci— gc -c a) 5 0 � y cm F 1amolo $ ` a° m cg0 to-.2" room o c ° o °m c 'w v � y >,_c c 0 U U O a) •r U .O Q1 -- Oct U (0 O E J OA u)TO 0 N ° F- = d OC O cp .-C la a) co m co y ` « a) ui m : t y 0 N J O .N m CO 0 f` a) m a 0 3 rn b J ° O N 0 16 c ads, m 0 caw a) W 0 co cr,cc 0 C 0/) y a 0 ° 0 O ` O a m 0 U 'C m '� OU o C C o m a) . U m 0 N O CDC O G a) ' C a) o - a) cu °` m O C V ? m E C O N O m C 3 U) C _ TO 0 C L -5 ° 2 0 Ea) m@romca>i - omaa0oo oQE aua, E 20 q) 23 o C O) 01 f- o N J o U d 2 o Q- 00 o ta 00 y 2 D U C m Z c H E O !n 2 a a U E .L.. z - - - - a - u) N w t--1 •C J Hf H U lLQ N r m K cop H a A U L C N • .., m -ON a a) c V— iv > tit m Z o LC mt) C N T E a O N_ C a) N .- O m L ... J J E C O) o Q Eco c E c ma a 6 a — �L 1 c 2 c J o ` N o w E m o c N V O O O lc CD C '> 'O O O a) E 2 s °U a) j N O N O o a — ° o ≥ a a �/ _ N C Q O a) N . mca /� m mw; > a) a) a C DCCC U -O a J yo O X o E ° 'C a)-a O m• caa) a) E 3 a) m a) m -5 w O a) .0 .o y o- Q CO = -o 0 . ° N o 3 a) . 3 > O p C 0 c c c 2 N O -O a) 'm O. t6 (a a) C ° — U r a E E m ° c co 0 o o a) o a) C a) a 2 2 N C C 4 L- 2 a) ° N c E E E N N 'O L a) N 2 °U 2 a a g o O 3 n c .O m V O y Y 'j a) c Vi m 'o N d .- m a) m U N a-°) N J a s o ,.-=`. E O � Eom @ � y o) -y°)o E 'O N — c m O ≤ "O co a) 3, am a) yc oa) 5 o c '> E 2` C L E..C m 2 a) N C ca U a.m 'N N O - .C "O O m E a. °c) w0E a c) 0 u) a - Le) N 0 o E� 0 N C N .cyj O C Uin C y a) o J J a N O • ) '= N m O -C CO N •.aCO y a) a)co a C c ,92 > N n N C U N U ,m E o `mIT:-0 N o o = c E C m O cc -o ,0= ca) raw c 3 m ≥� J m m y _ N O °• O o "° a o 0 J to a C a N a) • a) it a N To o] m N ° N O :.' c m o) y Q y — m E m a o m c o ,N., O r C -o° y L a) a N N '5 '° ,7). _ c O N U a) -6 'O m m 0 3 O 'ar S = (.0 m > 2 fi o 0 a) ro m g 0 o -!a) J ea y0aU 3o or �. ` % c � ma .NEo CD C LE, C co J J C co ° U -N C c• $ a o m a N c d -o a 0 CO U > L C a) m m E N c C = E T(a N j 3 N °O m "° O) N U C 0 C Cl) L O R 3 U m m a N N E N Q N C N .D a m O m a) c C a) J - E U cC O 60 N ° d C V U a) "O N N CA U a r C ` c c d _ m = 'c m a) o ,n o a) o m •'" a � C7 a a 3 `m -0 E m c -o m c) E ° m o '� -o a d '5 a) • c E a o d a 2 c c° — 'w a) ,_ r o ` 2 a0) a) o- = m .m m `o ' 2'r -0 J c o c c 0 J O U a) y a a) C f C U CO m c m o N N 3 C E .` .mc 0 > U N N N E C N J C E w ' 'O 'O N p o e a) C -o .° J m o a) O C N J o J C a N 0 O' O U) a) (a m C T a) m O1 0 U E TS m °)a s t t aEE i m CO U C N N y a) o 3 E m of E c N E O N N F- r {- S] d LL < U 0a D D D 0 W J d CO D J W D o �n - 4. - - - - a - - - - in N 1-4 W la aT C • 7 m 07 N d .3 C m a 7 LL Q .0 J b a) C H Q' C) 0 - f3 / O Z + CO Vi a) a) f > a) a) k } a a) 00 CI)-o To ) / r -o _ \ f � a co _ \ ( � _ k / E \ } � o # ! ! & ) ac 2 4 « a _ 7 - _ ; ] - - ) � ] • k \ - co _ o- caco ) a) 0 �• � � ) { / , \ \ \ ( { [ ) § ® Z \ ( ) fa \ C / \ / ®cc) } ) { a = C ) \ / / \ a = \ / } \ { { E C ) \ ) B \ k ) { k7 } | _ % o J - & { ) ) E k « § { _ _ ® § ( / • § _ � # k ) o2 ! | i � / & © } k ) ) ) f ] ( f / k § � � � � \ ) \ ) ) cu cc= 0)=3=0 ) \ 0 ; ) ( � « t = F2 ` aCO / t : f { ) aII- ® ( $ 2 ` » , § $ # g � V c ! | � { m ■ I ; @ ( f - Q ! $ 7 - ( \ k § k ( » { , , pa § OD0. 00_D 3 ] @ ) a_ j / oo / § i ! / / / / ) 12 5 .-• � a MI � - \ _ �) J \ I- 3 § § C 2 re G \ N « • 0 V N Q G 0 a _ o y C 0) c ro C C O Co c n a) N O U GO O N E C co o N a o U 0) C N J To y C w .a) O- w 00 l.O O 0 in b N 0 d h N E -- W E y m ° a) v IS w o ry a .-. a 3 U U o .5 U O a) a) o 'Op i- o co a O U c o o U ... N 2 N U c 7 0 ° 3 To L N C c - N E O N c 'O a) co O 0 C d To O _N ?� U °- 0 U 7 « '00 U ° N O N U 2 F- Cr N C0Ts CJ a c N o) O E 1.0 E E °) u o w o a) N 0/ 0 7 3 coa N a OU C E a G a) -0 .0 N N N G 0 0 0 0 7 U a 1-5 NO 0, J O ° U CO a O 3 o d c.) m c "10-4 .o o CSI O D a 0 o) O U o m N " o � o a c o .X c Q m .0 N O rn a) E .° a 0 a, 3 2 c Q aW m cm Ty ° c " a a, n co a Z a1 > .O-. c o if.) a1 0) .L.. a, O o U a= c o � H 0 E0 To b0 co o) aa, m y O o in b U CO L c N >. y m L_ U CC c esiOf > w 3 .— o 0 C 2 w N .y = w a d a) w c 0 To u) to 0 to co o a) O N N 7 O 0- G co N w U U cc O -° .c O c a) m m o m °EE Cc m o a) my o f bN N 0 - N O, 0 O� (LTO N n 0 N a) N _co U a W- u) ▪ N 0 -0 ') a y L co a a 7 F — cu s_E (13 u) L a) "O GO co O` co a o N N 3 N h. L N L N N C co U C N y CM U 7 0 °' a R 0 a) 7 O >+ C vi _° a) N N y ., O L o co o ar a 2 E a) a) m -o 5) E v, c — + c a CO A O N U O N j o a N O O J. a) N 0 U 3 co a a co c x m c E o y o co o t m ° 3 E T c y a�ci N a, o a m O aO R 0) ° a) d c a -0 CO E EU c m 5 ` ai b0 y ' > ,L IS y ` n) a, c C a, ° OE -o m a) m ` U o b N 7 > .`+ o > a) W a7 0) -o EO a) a) c a/ C O G 4.. j L U d -O y >O a) c U x E C E C) E N ,n ° 0 0 -° 0 U a t E E O O `) O i- co J EE � O CD 2 C a) 3 N .U>. o 0 co 0 °" N O 7 >. O ° 5O y 0 Q a J T v) a7 2 _c 0 co o N o- — U b ? ° E m -L2 m ; E o ° a ° ;la m ® 2 ° C E U o Q 5 's 00 a) C N 0 a 0 o C o N N ° N UO E N N O. N p to o, O CO 2 `m Q OM io d (L a, d c SO o O = D o m cO 3 0 is (n CO N W Nci, a C co 7 • Na, C J .) ` LLQ a) 7 I- MI 0 C b Q y c C U K • a) o a) m 0 (/) c 0) m CO _ C m U O N o r co C co a co E a O 4 C p m p L @ N U _ co E o C C a) a =O 0 C Cr) -'° E 0 m — E rill W 0 0 TI)> a 0 `o aa)) u C = • C J C O p o V) N U O E > a) p a) O O 2 O D Z s J N a - N —0 O O O co > 0 > 2 12 -0O N .. co a) a) co C C CO y N .o a d E O N N YO 06 .5° y (O N 0 0 co LL C N 0 0 0 _ a o E a) a a)) m a " E r U co a) O 0 O C O a> a U) N 2 N a -o E To o • a m` I E c o 0 _ 2 >, o c $ m a) o E Q p w -oo N > O o a) _ U O a) L LL O 'o O o U D w 'o ru a o ` '� o • o m o @`o 0 a 'o w c v c_ a) p O Y C m r w E = m U r c a) 3 = N OD o o a) o E U) �' a r. U 3 u a) > c0i ° C N k a ° a t c a) 2 m u, a> C a c O 0 C O N C y N .p m ..{'.i 11 D "O 3 J a) c co u) .° a) co () a) c a) U 12 O > 2 U C o z r a) 0 C O Uco U a) m E C o U rn o 0 2 m a 2 a`) E 0 U c a> E mai 'c m ≥ CO - C E C a) c U ° d C C 'JO O (o CC > O co o a) a.) a c2 b y o L C 3 , N moo c m C � U .3 m Li - U) o E a _c c a) coi c a) - c 0 d -0 0 a a0i E E 0) C " a a) a o aa o a 3 a) m co Y. to w eT 3 c o U 3 0 0 o) a m al co = a o bm e C o r `o =o ° c = a `o F '- c Op N 'O c O m N m N O '3 N p) a r O 2' a) N N C a) c a o) y o C -p N C Z E t n) c a 0 L m a O a) O C _ a) 2 O U C U a) U U N U W aa)) O C N 'p 2 d o O 2 C O O O co U 2 c 0 a) 0 2 0 a) >` o a a) o> u -° E a) g a o 0 w -p E CI) a C0! WaccdE � t8- 2rmao � '? eet C t) >, a EC ° f0 p � 56.— U N O.N N EL .N y .C O E 'C 2 oy a) U — c o a) o � co mooU a Ur a2Q -aO2O QU0O > 00 Ur — E i7 y -O 7 C O m (n N W y c 7 Cr) C a7 m o e ii Q ar 0 0 o U H � ' H Q' m to • t U Co O re 0 v m a) ° . a o a) 0 C 0 o E a) O _ —_ o0 co co ° 2 E ❑ co Vl (/1 m 2 LO o O b O) > m C o 0 ` m J 5z O O O E C V O O Z D a) a) � o12 co U U - > m a in Q 3 c 2 C E U 0 0 CO 0 m C .2 — a) U g N T o 0 >'O 2` co N N O O N a) L U U C a L U O) Oa ° d 0 a. O m 0 E ° OD o O C a O 0 C -O U 0 N C b. -O co O C a) ul a a) C Q' O E a O O w 3 N -O I 2 • C 0 N 0 0 C N C 0 — L in 0 J ° 1y N 0 L C 0 N ° 92 a) O 0 = N 0 al N Z' o o 0 o o) E 'c a ca E d a g To a) m0 E 0 co o b0 C Y -oo ° L a m o t 3 `o o .N y a o co a Y n v= = y 3 c CD ❑ m m m m a s CO o) 0 d' a a) C C N o a) a O O. O o C ° N N0 N O 2 a m N ` o acorn c c > = E E o _I N 'b 't o c w ° o O — C d 3 'I) ° .a 'C o e[a R 0CT ate) o a) m j d c 2 0 £ V7 O O J a 0 0 :o U L > O E C -° C n 0 y > m a — C C a c O c C a C C C C >. m N E 3 C z a) U -o Y co O a) 0 0 O CD m Y m m o c E d p c 7 � m a ai o) m a an) w CO > > U a t—° -°a) m e .c Z a c, o -o °) CO 0, C 3 L0 Y a) 2 is c c 7 m a o o k-o L_ u, o m E .E c o C q o o `o c v) a) C L D r °) E co o C O w O o C F m m c.) y' E m '�- c C o a) a) •,� a r - m c U c o 'O ° LL ° 0 7 0 - - i` 0 C 0 0 0 C E 3 O t 0 O= 0, c C L o P N E J O by E m to L L .o y w p >`U a w O 3 d o a m m v, a a .o CO m m m d m a :�•• C) p L a 3 o 2 m C a) '- 0 a-° o ° a`) 2 y c 2 a) �° ° -o /-i la a) m m 0 0 ` C m .0-. J Z' a) 0c a a — (n m m p l~a 2 Ua in O -o l0 C 0 C ° E ° •• L W E O W >. C C 0 0 O C a) ° ' ED -O .° a) c a) C E C Y C O CO y C 2 =o c 5. 0 co E = o co 0 o m °) E =° L.L. .a co 3 E 0 'm m E E '� C C c Y ° c E «. a. C 00 O° C° G O `a 0 2 0 .c a) .� o C O N Ein Y U U U z m a 6 Q o E -oT-O 0 m s- 2 E m 2 U Q + C 3 L ✓ 2 1 2 - - a O L.L. - s s 2 J 2 4] - a W a a) a (. a S. — Z O (n (0 N W yp RI co N a) 4 J K V LLQ a) 7 0V .. *.r. c et CU K aU) o Eco ... • C N C N C C a) 0 C E E ru Eo 0 > 0 a U a p E m E N � 0 > ° m ° > J co'C T:51 "C I-..' CO W J O .C O (J, m N -O as N l`2 o o co -o a) 0 — C =+ a1 L.. C Y N y (n -O O 0 -o C -o O E 0 m co O J0 U U N O O N y co (n C m U To O N 2 co m U -O a o 75 O m U m U = co O f co a aU co a o CON E N-o o EL' O a) C o a m O m o 'O a 0 = N N _ U m 0 co 0 d a> c E C V -CC .co r .0 U co U • .. m N 2]It m c m Z' o m 3 m °) E a '3 U X O m O ,n N G M C C O O 0 C N C C C9 •1.4 D > O 'g O 'C m y C C •n o OU J O O U .O. .L-. -LT, O "y co w c.) m ` u d m@ a) C ` .0 rn a) N N O = > 00 � • a o .co N C "O .C co N O N r ' c, C o) CO 3 -o o ai 'o 9 'O a� O d o >' c o CO c o m c a CL ea O C t j C co o N O o a w ao m N a I- 0- o f E a E 2 m l-, CU wO `O N m a-°i a m a a m N a w .•E t Z O m a s u) w CO a! W C U N Y N -O -O y la co E ca m e Z y E To a E c o -°o m m o m O C w o O co Y O > 'o m a Ci U N O U a 2 m N m N N CO 0 = co m a A OCl-0 l9 CO ? m so C1 N 'm N I. go) W) N _ N _ to 2 =o m m m N •- L -o 0 m C L y CU N -o w -is7 'O J a o a Fi 0 d 0 C .c CO .01 O 3 O N N A Z 'O > N J J CI_ C p j a o w O CC m .C CU m Q) E CO aa)i E 3 m 3 N 0 3 o Sd c =o .Y 2 ,_ o .,- m 03 0 oo a O , O d ≥ E p .sy m a) -vs m a m o L d p c' 2 m o O m E rn a p y m oc - K O Et pp - a CC U L o7 Z H o Z r 2 Y a 0 a co a a = a d < Q a a m a a O V) _) N W y1-1 7 Ob, C" CO 01 N m C 3 M U U Q CU j C V a' RI y U 0 F K y la N •C in CoE to 0)) F; m a) m > 2' 0 C O `o O m a m o a c 0 A o co m E = E0) o a J 'C `° N E a0i m 0 ' J 2 0 U o r m CO m 0 m 0 5 W _ a -p c c U C 'O w N N N E N _ J L p y '(` a a) 0) ._ Z .`- a) N .L- = U U w O m C E L U O m _ E oN ; r m J 3 O` = )y y > J co w m .C m 'O @ m 0 Y co° C co m 0 2 m r a x 0 1J m .O >. gym, L c 0 0 D a) 3 Co Di 0 0 V i0 m U Y .,, M C O M U 0 V 0 a m a E : m E COa _ o `m co in w `o `o m �° o 0o N U O C CO m C C O C E ° vi c E `0 y D t E .0 D ^ m m tmi) 0 0 'X YO CO 0 0 c y m • 0 9 m m m a o a c a y m a o E a) ° m o 2 m o) -o a) 0. c `o V o) E bi' o m > m oco y m = o C m CO ,� p c Ti o a J CO N a) 0 0 O N O N y L O N Y ° ) O F. � 0) 0 CD Q Cl) 2 a E o o la a c m .3 f O m .c m y co O m c C N 0) m• c0 -0 N a N O P 'm-, O V M E V m CO o m Z m a c' = E 8 � ro es 0 a o o E o To co m a m .x E .- o) 0 a- 0 J a O. m m m m a.) = y a a C_ =1,5 p_ c — YO U .fl a) `m) w CO E '0 3 0) m L U C 'O O` J CO �' m a m m 0 -_� "0 m m 0 a s U 3 0 To d 0 3 d aa)i P w j co -0 m c 2' 'c c m a > Lm c >. "0 0) a) = m o E C .o Y WO O 0 CO CO m ° > CO a) CD o o 0 O a a a s _ m CO or o a c La -o m To m Lc 1.13 y — 02 — — "a) m ... C m — co)C c tit E > N mat 3 '3 N N N N a) U 3 m 0 ~ w m ≤ -0 _ m LJ C J Sa C H v F2NFr C C m e ,_ c c /-� d O 7 L m = = N 3 N m m m ° O Ca Na 3 3 .3 w 0 '3 3 E a H r m o 0 0E) m 0 m o c El— F- c a) m 0 N H = 0 — O c O a ) O !E 'O 3 0OO - s ≥ p > a 0 2a > C 0 > - J C ao 0 m m F- O O rn 0 m y m 2 0 a Q E -0 -o m am as o C co m U U 'fn 5 Z v Z CO U — L c Q Q H < E Q N U — m 'El o o)a coo nii (n N W y 'i 7 a, CO • O) N a at c 3 M a c LL Q as J O V 7O y y O Cr N TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS .. .__ MS _J _. 0 � itd'r ' wag acWtrim'w:, . .t C.• �. .� ''''�' �4-� ems; •. -a •=i F• t �-r t Zoo fl ! r `Lt f r t t ' ( f Utz i, • 1 . ? . 1 I I, 1 \iik; 1‘ 't t. • NoRm I-25 r..........,_______„....„ EIS ----_________„.., ____.......... 1/4 information. cooperation. transportation . Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS This chapter compares the impacts of the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B, What's in Chapter 4? 4 and the Preferred Alternative on each mode of Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts the transportation system. Impacts are 4.1 Compatibility with Transportation presented by package. Plans and Policies 4.2 Travel Demand 4.3 Travel Time 4.1 COMPATIBILITY 4.4 Level of Service 4.5 Transit Operations WITH 4.6 Safety 4.7 Freight Traffic TRANSPORTATION 4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems 4.9 Construction Impacts PLANS AND POLICIES 4.10 Summary of Transportation Findings Several planning agencies have published 1L plans and policies outlining their future transportation investment goals. This section describes the compatibility of the No-Action Alternative and the North 1-25 build packages (Package A, 4 Package B, and the Preferred Alternative)with existing local and regional transportation plans • and policies. 4.1.1 No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative generally would not be compatible with regional transportation plans • and policies because it does not accommodate planned upgrades along 1-25. It also would not provide regional multi-modal connections to the Denver Metro Area or to communities in - northern Colorado. • 4.1.2 Package Compatibility Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would be compatible with most local and regional transportation plans. These plans describe various roadway and transit 24 improvements. In most cases, the build packages would not preclude these improvements. • Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are specifically compatible with the - following plans for the reasons stated: • ► The Denver Regional Council of Governments' 2035 RTP (DRCOG, 2007) because the design in each package accommodates lane expansion and interchange improvements up to SH 7. ► The North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (NFRMPO and others, 2007) because each package includes expansion of 1-25 and the 1-25 interchange designs accommodate expansion of Prospect Road, Harmony Road, and US 34. The NFRMPO's 2035 fiscally constrained plan identifies some funding for 1-25 improvements and commuter rail right-of-way preservation. ► The Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (FHU, 2008a) because the US 85 corridor vision calls for increased carpooling, vanpooling, and construction of park and • -,` ride facilities. Transportation Impacts 4-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► The Larimer County Transportation Plan (FHU and others, 2006) because the 1-25 2 interchange design in each package accommodates expansion of SH 392 and SH 402. Package A and the Preferred Alternative include right of way acquisition along the BNSF rail 4 line. All build packages include transit service between Larimer County communities and from Larimer County communities to the Denver Metro Area. 6 ► The City of Loveland 2030 Transportation Plan (LSA Associates, 2007) because the 1-25 7 interchange design in each package would accommodate expansion of Crossroads Boulevard, SH 402, and improvements to the US 34/1-25 interchange complex. ► The City of Fort Collins 2004 Transportation Master Plan (PBS&J and others, 2004) because 1': the 1-25 interchange design in each package would accommodate expansion of Harmony Road and improvements to SH 14. 12 ► The FasTracks Plan because Package A and the Preferred Alternative would extend 13 planned FasTracks rail service to the northern communities. The RTD transit expansion 14 project includes two commuter rail lines extending north toward the project area, terminating 1.` in Thornton and in Longmont. In addition, none of the packages would preclude other planned FasTracks improvements. 17 All three packages are generally compatible with the following plans because they would not la preclude the investment types being considered: ► Weld County Roadway Classification Plan (FHU, 2002b) ► Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan (LSA, 2010)11 • Not all of the improvements included in Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative 22 are included in the fiscally constrained plan for DRCOG. CDOT has submitted amendments 2 requesting DRCOG to include Phase 1 Preferred Alternative improvements in the fiscally constrained plan. The amendments are expected to be adopted in September 2011. Adoption of these amendments must occur prior to inclusion of these improvements in a Record of Decision (ROD). 27 4.1.2.1 PACKAGE A General Purpose Lanes The additional general purpose lanes (GPLs) and upgraded interchanges on 1-25 included in Package A would be compatible with the North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation "s1 Plan, which includes widening 1-25 to six lanes and improving deficient interchanges on 1-25. 32 The planned improvements would further be compatible with the mission of the Upper Front _. Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan to meet the needs of all travelers in the Upper Front Range. The improvements also would be compatible with the 2035 Statewide Transportation 35 Plan's goal to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and accommodate growth in freight 56 transportation. 37 Commuter Rail 22 The Package A commuter rail component generally would be compatible with NFRMPO and UFRRPC goals to provide a multi-modal transportation system that includes passenger rail. Though generally compatible with the Fort Collins 2004 Master Transportation Plan, Package • 41 A commuter rail would use some of the same right-of-way as the proposed Mason 42 Transportation corridor bus rapid transit (BRT). Transportation Impacts 4-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 Package A commuter rail would connect to and be compatible with the rail lines planned by 2 RTD in the DRCOG area. These two lines are the Northwest Rail Corridor and North Metro 3 Corridor. The commuter rail would operate as an extension of the North Metro train service 4 with every other train traveling north to Fort Collins. ; Commuter Bus The Package A commuter bus would be compatible with the mission of the City of Greeley's 7 Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan to implement a convenient multi-modal transportation system and to provide service to and from Denver. 4.1.2.2 PACKAGE B Tolled Express Lanes The addition of capacity and improved interchanges along 1-25 under Package B would be • compatible with DRCOG's 2035 MVRTP, North Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation `4 Plan and Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. The tolled express lanes (TELs) also would be compatible with the Statewide 2035 Transportation Plan goals to • increase mobility, reduce congestion, and accommodate future travel modes. All of these plans' goals are to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and accommodate future travel 41 modes. However, DRCOG's 2035 MVRTP is the only plan that specifically includes a cf "managed" lane type such as the TELs in Package B. • 2 Bus Rapid Transit BRT in Package B generally would be compatible with NFRMPO and UFRRPC goals to provide a multi-modal system with regional transit service along 1-25. 4.1.2.3 PREFERREDALTERNATIVE General Purpose Lanes The additional general purpose lanes (GPLs) and upgraded interchanges on 1-25 included in the Preferred Alternative would be compatible with the North Front Range 2035 Regional - Transportation Plan, which includes widening 1-25 to six lanes and improving deficient interchanges on 1-25. The planned improvements would further be compatible with the mission of the Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan to meet the needs of all travelers in the Upper Front Range. The improvements also would be compatible with the 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan's goal to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and 32 accommodate growth in freight transportation. • Tolled Express Lanes 24 The addition of capacity and improved interchanges along I-25 under the Preferred Alternative would be compatible with DRCOG's 2035 MVRTP, North Front Range 2035 Regional _4c; Transportation Plan and Upper Front Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. The tolled express lanes (TELs) also would be compatible with the Statewide 2035 Transportation Plan goals to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and accommodate future travel modes. All of 61,,, these plans' goals are to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and accommodate future travel - modes. DRCOG's 2035 MVRTP is the only plan that specifically cites the need for a = "managed" lane type such as the TELs in the Preferred Alternative. Transportation Impacts 4-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Commuter Rail 2 The Preferred Alternative commuter rail would be compatible with NFRMPO and UFRRPC 3 goals to provide a multi-modal transportation system that includes passenger rail and the Fort 4 Collins 2004 Master Transportation Plan. The Preferred Alternative rail line would be 5 compatible and complementary to the Mason Transportation Corridor BRT. The Preferred Alternative commuter rail would connect to and be compatible with the rail 7 lines planned by RTD in the DRCOG area. These two lines are the Northwest Rail Corridor and North Metro Corridor. Commuter Bus The Preferred Alternative commuter bus would be compatible with the mission of the City of 11 Greeley's Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the Upper Front Range Regional 12 Transportation Plan to implement a convenient multi-modal transportation system and to 12 provide service to and from Denver. 4 4.2 TRAVEL DEMAND This section describes the regional travel demand forecasting model and measures used to compare the three build packages to the No-Action Alternative. Travel demand includes 17 measures such as highway volumes, transit ridership, miles of travel, and hours of travel. 4.2.1 Overview of Travel Forecasting • Travel demand forecasts were prepared using a multi-modal regional TransCAD travel 25 demand model. Travel models are standard planning tools that produce estimates of future _ roadway traffic volumes and transit ridership based on the existing and proposed 22 transportation network and future population and employment projections. Due to the large regional study area, the NFRMPO and DRCOG regional models were merged 24 into a combined multi-modal model for the North 1-25 Draft EIS forecasting effort. A Travel 25 Forecasting Working Group met periodically to review the technical process of combining the 25 two models. The technical group included modeling staff from NFRMPO, DRCOG, RTD, 2? CDOT, the City of Fort Collins, and the consultant team. Complete documentation of the 25 development, validation, and application of the North 1-25 EIS Combined Travel Model is 2E, available in the technical reports Development and Validation of the North 1-25 EIS Combined C, Travel Model and North 1-25 EIS Travel Demand Model Application and Results, included in Appendix G of the Alternatives Development and Screening Report (FHU and Jacobs, 2011a). 32 Travel forecasts are for the year 2035. The combined travel model is based on the North Front 33 Range 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (adopted by NFRMPO in December 2007) and the 34 DRCOG 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (adopted by DRCOG in December 2007). These 35 plans include forecasts of 2035 population and employment, a major input to the travel model. 35 Projects included in the 2035 travel demand forecasting model include planned local roadway capacity improvements that are considered very likely to occur. Information on the specific projects included in the background travel demand forecasting network is included in the North 1-25 Draft EIS Travel Demand Model Application and Results (Appendix G, FHU and • 41 Jacobs, 2010). Transportation Impacts 4-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 2035 was used as the year of analysis as it provides a common point for fair comparison for all 2 alternatives. 2035 is the most up-to-date socio-economic projection data from the NFRMPO 3 and DRCOG. Each build alternative is designed to meet the 2035 travel demand; the analysis 4 assumes the alternative would be fully constructed in 2035 and impacts are based on 5 implementation by 2035. This process of developing alternatives identifies the capital requirements for transportation improvements. It is acknowledged that current funding 7 projections will not fully address the identified capital needs. However, if funding becomes available, it is CDOT's intent to complete construction of the improvements by 2035. The North 1-25 EIS combined travel model is limited in its capability for forecasting toll 1:: volumes. For this reason, the traffic forecasts for the express lanes of Package B and the 11 Preferred Alternative were prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, a firm that has expertise in 12 toll and revenue forecasting. The estimates were developed, based on 2035 travel demand, 1 3 from the North 1-25 EIS Combined Travel Model, included in Appendix G (FHU and 14 Jacobs, 2011a). 15 4.2.2 Hours and Miles of Travel Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is a common measurement of the amount of vehicle travel in a specified area. VMT, along with vehicle hours of travel (VHT), result in the calculation of • average vehicular speed. Table 4-1 provides a comparison of these measures under existing • conditions, the No-Action Alternative and each build alternative. The results are shown for two • categories in the study area, the first are freeways —fully grade-separated, access controlled facilities including 1-25 and portions of 1-76, US 36, E-470, and NW Parkway, and the second • 22 are other facilities —these are all other types of roadways included in the travel model such as - US 85, Harmony Road, and SH 119. In the entire regional study area, the total VMT for any of the packages slightly exceeds 52 million per day in 2035. The amount of total VMT would be • somewhat higher for the build alternatives compared to the No-Action Alternative, indicating an increased overall mobility in the regional study area due to the capacity improvements on 1-25. VHT would decrease in each build package, as a result of slightly higher average freeway • speeds. In other words, under each build alternative, travelers would be able to make longer trips at a faster average speed than compared to the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative _ would provide the highest increase in VMT while still reducing VHT. 4.2.3 Highway Volumes Figure 4-1 provides a relative comparison of total daily traffic volumes in the 1-25 corridor 34 under existing conditions, the No-Action Alternative, and the build alternatives. As shown, projected traffic volumes for the No-Action Alternative and each build alternative generally follow the same patterns as existing traffic volumes. For instance, existing traffic volumes on 7 1-25 are lowest at the north end and steadily increase south to about SH 402. South of SH 402, daily traffic volumes remain relatively the same to SH 119 and then begin to steadily increase • south of SH 119, with the highest volumes recorded at the southern end of the corridor, which 4.. is just north of US 36 in the Denver Metro Area. The Preferred Alternative would have higher 41 daily traffic volumes than Package A and Package B along 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60, similar daily traffic volumes between SH 60 and SH 7, and higher volumes than Package A a south of SH 7. Transportation Impacts 4.5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 2 Table 4-1 Daily VMT, VHT, and Average Speed Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 2001 2035 2035 2035 2035 Existing No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Freeway 9,709,000 16,666,000 17,663,000 17,162,000 17,739,000 Other Facilities 17,462,000 35,744,000 35,095,000 35,454,000 35,066,000 Total 27,171,000 52,410,000 52,758,000 52,616,000 52,805,000 Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) 2001 2035 2035 2035 2035 Existing No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Freeway 168,000 363,000 364,000 360,000 361,000 Other Facilities 584,000 1.354.000 1,331,000 1,333,000 1,320,000 Total 752,000 1,717,000 1,695,000 1,693,000 1,681,000 Average Speed (MPH) 2001 2035 2035 2035 2035 Existing No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Freeway 58 46 49 48 49 Other Facilities 30 26 26 27 27 Total 36 31 31 31 31 Note:Area of analysis is the regional study area. • - Table 4-2 provides detailed daily traffic volumes for existing conditions, the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Existing traffic volumes range from a combined north-south volume of 19,100 vehicles-per-day just south of SH 1 to over 180,000 vehicles-per-day south of 84th Avenue. Projected 2035 traffic volumes are much higher than existing conditions between SH 1 and SH 7. As shown in Table 4-2, under both the No-Action Alternative and Package A, projected 2035 daily traffic volumes would range from about 35,000 vehicles-per-day south of SH 1 to about 250,000 vehicles-per-day south of 84th Avenue. Between Harmony Road and SH 7, 12 Package A would have daily traffic projections from 10,000 to 40,000 vehicles-per-day higher than No-Action Alternative daily traffic projections. - Package B daily volume projections (2035) in the GPLs generally would be less than No- Action Alternative daily volumes. However, Package B would carry additional traffic volumes in 16 the TELs, which would create higher overall volume in the corridor than under No-Action 17 Alternative conditions. TELs would have projected daily traffic volumes ranging from a low of 1,3 8,000 vehicles-per-day near the Prospect Road interchange to a high of nearly 48,000 vehicles-per-day in the southern section of the corridor. Traffic assignments for the 21 TELs were performed with toll rates ranging from $0.05 to $0.50 per mile. Optimal tolls would L'. manage the de mand errand in the TELs while maximizing revenue. • Transportation Impacts 4-6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 4-1 Mainline 1-25 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison g p 37.600 31.600 136.600 104,800IIIIMPo- "t iiir-Siss. - l4411 / ;� �� 145.200 �_><Tge __ ON 133.700 i _ 196,900 ->`- 200,300 ,`,C:\-\- \e3.1)..\e3.1).. 2 &• 202,900 S\\t& -4lik 188100 gam' 4iliNkj6 ?00 �? 203,500 r ,) =" 203,500 253,500 � , 192,300 253.500 >-- -II 4189,100 248,200 t 32,500 246,400 • W R0 700 S�1N9 . 1%r . . w 4 „50, . 'N., ' .....\ i/- t, \ SAS S�, `.� . ,,,, • / \� , N, , / . ,o, All_. Legend: \ XX,XXX Preferred Alternative(2035) XX,XXX Package B (2035) 4�f XX,XXX Package A(2035) %Not to Scale 1 `` XX,XXX No Action(2035) ; ; " ; Existing (2005) a - - N, 2 Note: All volumes are shown in Table 4-2. 3 4 Preferred Alternative daily volume projections (2035) in the GPLs generally would be 5 somewhat higher than the No-Action Alternative daily volumes. Like Package B , the Preferred 6 Alternative would carry additional traffic volumes in the TELs. The Preferred Alternative would 7 carry higher overall volume in the corridor than under No-Action Alternative conditions. TELs 8 would have projected daily traffic volumes ranging from a low of 13 ,000 vehicles-per-day near 9 the Prospect Road interchange to a high of nearly 45,000 vehicles-per-day in the southern 10 section of the corridor. Traffic assignments for the TELs were performed with toll rates ranging 11 from $0.05 to $0.50 per mile. Optimal tolls would manage the demand in the TELs while 12 maximizing revenue. 13 Capacity improvements, whether they are additional GPLs or TELs, typically would attract 14 more travel to the improved highway corridor. The increased travel demand would occur on • 15 parallel arterial roads such as US 287 and US 85 under the No-Action Alternative. Transportation Impacts 4-7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Transit ridership projections indicate that transit would attract less than 7,000 riders per day. 2 Because this volume is an order of magnitude smaller than vehicle volumes anticipated on 1-25 3 and because these transit trips would have been made on 1-25 as well as other parallel 4 facilities, the presence of transit would not noticeably affect highway volumes in either 5 Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative. 6 Table 4-2 Mainline I-25 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison Daily Traffic Volumes South of Interchange 2035 2035 2035 Package B 2035 Preferred Alternative Existing No- Package General General Action A Purpose TEL Total Purpose TEL Total SH 1 19,100 31,600 37,600 37,600 0 37,600 37,600 0 37,600 Mountain Vista 24,700 51,000 57,700 57,700 0 57,700 57,700 0 57,700 SH 14 40,800 72,300 93,000 83,600 8,400 92,000 84,700 12,900 97,600 Prospect 46,300 90,700 114,500 86,700 22,000 108,700 102,500 19,500 122,000 Harmony 61,200 104,800 136,600 108,300 22,900 131,200 126,000 19,800 145,900 SH 392 57,700 103,700 137,400 105,100 26,900 132,000 122,100 23,400 145,500 Crossroads Blvd. 63,900 113,300 150,500 108,200 26,700 134,900 128,500 25,000 153,500 US 34 64,400 127,400 160,600 124,400 24,700 149,100 140,900 24,800 165,700 SH 402 62,500 120,900 156,800 113,700 31,600 145,400 136,600 31,400 168,000 CR 16 63,800 122,000 154,500 112,200 26,200 138,400 132,900 29,600 162,500 •, SH 60 65,100 124,300 144,900 108,200 22,400 130,600 133,700 23,600 157,300 SH 56 65,000 116,800 128,000 100,300 20,600 120,900 114,400 19,100 133,500 CR 34 65,100 118,700 128,800 105,100 16,900 122,000 114,300 16,000 130,300 SH 66 68,600 133,700 145,200 117,700 17,100 134,900 123,300 14,600 137,900 SH 119 77,000 149,200 167,300 132,300 24,200 156,500 130,000 21,600 151,700 SH 52 86,800 163,000 188,600 137,600 32,900 170,500 137,000 30,400 167,400 CR 8 89,000 166,100 191,800 143,900 30,500 174,400 143,000 28,000 171,000 SH 7 96,700 188,100 202,900 176,300 24,100 200,300 175,400 21,500 196,900 E-470 87,200 172,000 176,300 157,500 32,500 190,000 160,000 30,000 190,000 144th Avenue 87,200 167,500 171,400 144,500 39,200 183,700 147,000 36,700 183,700 136th Avenue 104,600 174,600 178,100 156,300 34,100 190,500 158,900 31,600 190,500 120th Avenue 132,500 189,700 192,300 165,300 38,300 203,500 167,800 35,700 203,500 104th Avenue 154,800 211,000 213,600 174,400 47,500 221,900 177,000 45,000 221,900 Thornton Pkwy. 164,100 219,700 220,600 200,700 23,600 224,300 200,700 23,600 224,300 84th Avenue 180,700 246,400 248,200 247,900 5,600 253,500 247,900 5,600 253,500 • Transportation impacts 4-8 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 1 4.2.4 Effects on Arterials 2 In general , the increased traffic on 1-25 with the build alternatives would reduce traffic on the 3 roadways parallel to 1-25. A screenline analysis was conducted to assess the magnitude of this 4 effect. Traffic on all roads crossing each screenline was tabulated and compared for each 5 package. Figure 4-2 presents the results in terms of daily volumes in 2035. In the northern 6 area, Package A generally would reduce arterial volumes compared to the No-Action 7 Alternative; the total screenline reduction on arterials would range from 10, 000 to 35, 000 8 vehicles per day. Package B would have less effect on removing vehicles from parallel 9 arterials, with reductions ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. This difference is due 10 to Package A attracting more traffic to 1-25 than Package B. The Preferred Alternative also 1 1 reduces arterial volumes compared to the No-Action Alternative; the total screenline reduction 12 on arterials would range from 5,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day. On the southernmost 13 screenline in the Denver Metro Area, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would reduce 14 arterial volumes due to the capacity addition of the TELs, while Package A would result in no 15 net change on arterial traffic. 16 Overall , the magnitude of the effect on arterials would be relatively small , as the changes are 17 spread among many individual roads. The effect on peak-hour arterial conditions would not be 18 notable. 1 4.2.5 Highway Users 20 Daily highway users (people) were determined for existing conditions, the No-Action 21 Alternative, Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Users were calculated by 22 adding the daily vehicle volume on 1-25 to the entering on-ramp volumes at each interchange 23 and multiplying by the average vehicle occupancy. Figure 4-3 gives a comparison of daily 24 users. 25 Of the three build packages, Package B would serve the fewest users and the Preferred 26 Alternative would serve the highest number of system users. The number of users expected 27 on the Preferred Alternative is over 990,000 daily and would more than double the number of 28 users served today. 29 Figure 4-2 Daily Highway Users (People) on I-25 30 Daily System Users 1,000.000 soo,000 600,000 400,000 ■ ■ ■ ■ 100,000 —Z o K T f Existing No Action PackageA Package B Preferred Alternative Transportation Impacts 4-9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS . information. cooperation. transportation. all Figure 4-3 Parallel Arterial Effects (2035 Daily Volumes) LEGEND South of Harmony .N/ Highways _Lads:: cn ---N Arterial Roads �.•' , 190 175 185 175 rn Regional Study Area i 85 tri . [2.J % J I City Boundaries . i r N 105 • Cities & Towns i 1 "`Q • - 135 130 145 I t 1 County Boundaries ! ,i.n cu_ min r Action A B Alternative Daily Volume in ;_ Mt 1 Thousands I I � I � 1 South of US 34 = 0 _- ; f,rdto � lucerne 290 255 280 265 i 1 t 1 Greeley ! t 4/ i tr"." "NH lJy;1. 125 160 150 165 i o -r - ' q' No Package Package Preferred I VS i Action A B Alternative � 't • saute t- / North of SH 66 I I r 1 0 �. N - - - - - - - - -r-- - - - --i ,� 11 120 105 115 105 North ofSH7 Ii ,4,a / dIll �+ 0 I N.Ites'It Ille%3/4.N " ^, TO 200 190 195 195 i 1 i20 l --- Longmont 130 125 130 III /cii ,I �-. it No Package Package Preferred ll : I m4 Action A B Alternative LC,NI 7/7/ lblsnar p . N i Freston. 165 190 175 170 Pew •o K ryallo Package Package Preferred 1 0 -.{..., F,rtI„ ,! rAction A B Alternative ID 1 i -1 4 ' 4,0— r ti , tv et wan ° rLy.rrsir'irl- VC!: \ ( - - ! - - South of 84th I '\ y ., 1, I O hn `' ss • .— '� 620 620 615 515 1 JtgFj —L-- :,...I , � M u7I0 2 4 6 8 10 Mlles N 24525!1 7..55 255 I / tNo Package Package Preferred — 9 9 Action A B Alternative 2 3 Ill Transportation Impacts 4-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 4.2.6 Transit Ridership 2 Table 4-3 displays the transit ridership forecasts for each of the package components. Since the No-Action Alternative does not include any regional transit, this alternative is not included 4 in the table. The daily ridership (the total number of daily route boardings) results are for trips in both directions on an average weekday in 2035. .. Package A commuter rail would attract 4,200 average weekday trips in 2035. Commuter bus to/from downtown Denver would attract 1,200 trips per day. Commuter bus service to/from DIA would attract another 450 daily trips. Package B BRT service to/from downtown Denver would attract over 6,450 trips per day in 2035. The BRT service to/from DIA would attract another 350 daily trips. • Preferred Alternative commuter rail would attract 2,700 average weekday trips in 2035. • Express Bus service on 1-25 would attract 3,100 riders per day. Commuter bus on US 85 • to/from downtown Denver would attract 400 trips per day. Express bus service to/from DIA 4 would attract 300 trips per day in 2035. Feeder buses would serve passengers who transfer to commuter rail in Package A and BRT in Package B, as well as passengers who travel community-to-community without boarding the commuter rail or BRT. Package A would • generate more feeder bus ridership than Package B because Package B BRT would serve Fort Collins and Greeley directly; therefore, less feeder bus service would be required. • IJ The feeder bus service provided in the Preferred Alternative to support Commuter Rail and • Express Bus would attract 1,650 riders per day. This is similar to the feeder bus ridership of • Package B because the amount of feeder bus service is less compared to Package A due to the provision of Express Bus serving Fort Collins and Greeley. 4.2.6.1 EFFECT OF UPDATED FORECASTING DATA ON TRANSIT RIDERSHIP The ridership forecasts are estimated using a multimodal travel demand model that was combined from the NFRMPO and DRCOG regional travel demand models to cover the entire • study area of the North 1-25 EIS. As with any simulation model, there are uncertainties associated with its forecasts and any forecast is considered a "snapshot in time" of the best information available. The output largely depends upon the major input assumptions of future population and employment and travel behavior parameters. During the final stages of development of the FEIS, DRCOG and RTD incorporated new information into their 2035 regional travel model regarding both socio-economic conditions and travel behavior parameters (the NFRMPO did not update its 2035 model during this timeframe). These _ updates affected the ridership projections for many of the planned RTD FasTracks corridors. The new projections were for the most part notably higher than RTD's previous corridor ridership forecasts and transit trips as a whole were higher. These model updates would similarly alter to some extent the ridership projections produced by the North 1-25 EIS combined model. Because the FEIS was near completion, it was not possible to implement the changes into the combined model. However, to gauge the magnitude of the effect these specific changes would have on the transit ridership forecasts for 4 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative, an expert panel was convened. The panel consisted of travel model experts and socio-economic development experts from CDOT, •11 the FHWA, the FTA, RTD, DRCOG, NFRMPO, and the consultant team. After consideration of the specific changes for socio-economics and model parameters by mode and geographic Transportation Impacts 4-11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information, cooperation. transportation. • I location, and with the acknowledgment of the uncertainties inherent in such an exercise, the 2 expert panel developed a range for potential updated 2035 ridership projections. The panel 3 determined that upon implementation of these changes to the forecasting process the 4 Preferred Alternative commuter rail in 2035 might attract between 3,500 and 4,300 daily riders 5 instead of 2,700; the express bus 2035 daily ridership might be between 3,600 and 4,400 6 instead of 3,400 riders per day. Total 2035 regional transit ridership forecasts for the Preferred 7 Alternative would be in the range of 7,550 to 9,200 riders per day, compared to 6,500 with 5 previous forecasts. Similar effects would be realized for transit ridership in Package A and 9 Package B. Package A commuter rail daily ridership might range between 5,400 and 6,600; commuter bus daily ridership might range between 1,300 and 1,500 in 2030; BRT ridership in Package B might range between 7,100 and 8,700 riders per day. 2 Further information on the nature of these changes is in the technical report North 1-25 EIS 3 Travel Demand Model, which is included in Appendix G of the Alternatives Development and '4 Screening Report(FHU and Jacobs, 2011 a). 5 Table 4-3 2035 Weekday Transit Ridership Package A Daily Riders Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to/from Thornton* 4,200 Commuter Bus to/from Downtown Denver 1,200 Commuter Bus to/from DIA 450 Feeder Bus (sum for all routes) 4,200 Total Regional Riders** 5,850 Package B Daily Riders • BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to/from Downtown Denver 6,450 BRT: Fort Collins to/from DIA 350 Feeder Bus (sum for all routes) 1,700 Total Regional Riders** 6,800 Preferred Alternative Daily Riders Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to/from Thornton* 2,700 Commuter Bus to/from Downtown Denver 400 Bus: North Front Range to/from Downtown Denver 3,100 Bus: Erie to/from DIA 300 Feeder Bus (sum for all routes) 1,650 Total Regional Riders** 6,500 * Ridership totals the amount of passenger activity on the extended service to the north of RTD FasTracks system(does not include ridership on the FasTracks portion of the route). **Total Regional Riders does not include feeder bus riders. 16 • Transportation Impacts 4.12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 4.2.6.2 PACKAGE A 2 Figure 4-4 displays the ridership results for station-to-station volumes, station activity, mode of access for the main Package A components, and feeder bus ridership by route. Some key findings are described below: 5 ► Daily rail ridership would increase from north to south, as activity grows towards the metropolitan area and the Denver Central Business District (CBD), regardless of the component. ► The South Transit Center in Fort Collins would generate the most ridership activity, followed by the Erie rail station in southwest Weld County and the 4th Street station in downtown Loveland. ► For the commuter bus route, the stops along US 85 generally would attract equal amounts of riders. The exception would be the south Greeley park-and-ride, which would attract more riders than the other stops. ► Overall, the mode split of passengers accessing a rail station in Package A would be about 45 percent driving, 30 percent walking, and 25 percent taking the bus. This would vary by station depending on the amount of bus service, the surrounding land use development pattern, and whether a park-and-ride is provided. Table 4-4 displays ridership activity for the Package A commuter rail stations. The forecasted Package A 2035 daily commuter rail ridership of 4,200 riders is comparable • ' to current ridership at several newer commuter rail systems across the U.S., including Sounder (Seattle), Altamont Commuter Express (San Jose), and Coaster (San Diego) . However, these other rail systems typically operate at lower service frequencies and, thus, have lower operating costs than would be associated with the commuter rail system proposed for Package A. Also, Package A ridership is low when compared to more established systems such as Tri-Rail (Florida) and Trinity Railway Express (Dallas-Fort Worth). Table 4-4 Package A Commuter Rail Station Activity (2035) Station Boardings and Alightings in 2035 Fort Collins—North Transit Center 500 Fort Collins—CSU 350 Fort Collins—South Transit Center 850 Loveland—29th Street 450 Loveland—4th Street Downtown 550 Berthoud—SH 56 200 Longmont—SH 66 200 Longmont—Sugar Mill 350 Erie—WCR 8 750 Note: Sugar Mill and WCR 8 stations are only included if a commuter rail line is built between Longmont and the FasTracks North Metro Corridor rail line. • Transportation Impacts 4-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. ID Figure 4-4 Package A 2035 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership LEGEND (. f Station Activity by i Access/Egress Type vve ws,lon Ilk Size indicates relative N 85 \........1 amount of station activity {287 / • \-\\ �A Ill Walk /I ---N Pieiie•Drive Ft. Collins North V ns . ` Bus Transit Center ; 500 1.200 Daily Ridership . \_• , Rail CSU 1 ! Ault 14 I 1300 ` � Transit Alignments Ft. Collins South 1 .Hann°"y j I. • Commuter Rail Alignment Transit Center 0 severance talon tl IS j Commuter Bus Alignment Thickness and value shown indicate j A SH-392 1 relative amount of activit on transit line "'"°` t y o Greeley- • RTD FasTracks Stations i Crossroads D Street Loveland-29th Street Greeley 100 RTD FasTracks Corridors , .` f7 --. North 1-25 Feeder Bus Routes Loveland•Downtown Greeley- r tom., oveland Al 19th Street I—\_. 34 /\/ Highways 2.100 : 37th St 2,400 Daily Ridership Evans- 375 i ,/`\/ Arterial Roads n SH-S0f8H-80 t IaSalle • / (NI . on ^^ , L.J Regional Study Area Berthoud y G i Milliken r J j dal City Boundaries v Cities & Towns in Project Area i 250 Daily Ridership • ilc e,! , O ail.. j Source North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecastko Model Run Package B, September 2006 . N A- Platteville- i/ • ti Longmont-SH 66 Mead SH 66 f L_ Platteville Ciro • Longmont ' SH-119 Ilw / �% Vollrnar 0 Longmont- 0 �_ i Sugar Mill - Firestone • rrederni Niwol , . 'stun, Fon lupt 1 I i — 350 Daily Ridership Erie-CR a Ft. Lupton- • Valniail SH 52 i per- , �O Wallenberg Boultderli o ��] i k `r )0 Lala,, ,141/44 >i ;\• L cry,Ile SH-7 Bright( Brighton .ry O4 •4klIor . , / ~`• • I (Liiiake us-as I*txnnlield Hnn,N.\, n, •, Nnrllualrm 36 250 0 Thornton DIA �2'"'' '�\ -'Commerce —. ! � "1' t . City r' • Denver • 17-1 Union Station / 0 2 4 6 8 10 ` -' 4w 1 Miles North fir✓ a. -11/4:--NN ---7---"Thi'l -. T 1 I / C ill Transportation Impacts 4-14 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. 4.2.6.3 PACKAGE B Figure 4-5 displays the ridership results for station-to-station volumes, station activity, mode of access for the main Package B components, and feeder bus ridership by route. Some key 4 findings are described below. ► BRT ridership would grow steadily from both Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver . ► The SH 119 and SH 7 BRT stations along 1-25 would generate higher-than-average ridership. ► Overall, the mode split of passengers accessing a BRT station would be about 65 percent drive, 20 percent walk, and 15 percent bus. This would be somewhat different than the access mode split observed in Package A because the BRT would be located in the 1-25 corridor farther away ,, from population and employment centers, thereby increasing the number of riders who would arrive by automobile. Table 4-5 summarizes station activity for Package B BRT. As shown, the highest station activity in northern Colorado would occur at SH 7, SH 119, Fort Collins' South Transit Center, 4 and the SH 56/SH 60 station. Table 4-5 Package B Bus Rapid Transit Station Activity (2035) Station Boardings and Alightings in 2035 Fort Collins—South Transit Center 900 • Fort Collins—Harmony and Timberline 300 Fort Collins— 1-25 and Harmony 200 1-25 and SH 392 100 1-25 and Crossroads 200 Greeley 8th and 8th 300 Greeley US 34 and 83rd Avenue 500 Greeley US 34 and SH 257 100 1-25 and SH 56/60 600 1-25 and SH 119 1,100 1-25 and SH 52 500 1-25 and SH 7 1,500 Wagon Road 1,600 Downtown Denver 5,400 Denver International Airport 300 -r • Transportation Impacts 4-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 r August 2011 EIS '. information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 4-5 Package B 2035 Station-to-Station Daily Ridership LEGEND Station Activity by Access/Egress Typeilk •____.._••�• Size indicates relative !r • '• 85 amount of station activity ;f! �•�� i `` MI Walk ikThe i . ;,, Drive j Bus 1 Fn't Collins--. _ _ . '‘ m__y°� ' 1,000 Ault �' Rail Harmony and 300 Daily Ridership Various Timberline Irony !, Transit Alignments j ' mathA t -- Severance iatrs, t Bus Rapid Transit Alignment t 1,100 South Transit Thickness and value shown indicate Center '' •.i•i relative amount of activity on transit line la l,Y-.atY, V-- PIE I ? SH-3921RTD FasTracks Stationsiv750300 ; and 6�Crossroads GreeleyRTD FasTracks Corridors 34 I �. $ a ;*l -•- North 1-25 Feeder Bus Routes `� =toVeland US-251 83rd - o ;c;n .�,�IL Ez /\/ Highways O Menus F;;,,r 1 450 Daily Ridership O /\/ Arterial Roads N La Sant- • ;� i JohnsttM'I ! L. J Regional Study Area i :•_! al —•—� I rit'r1Jw.: _ 1 i 0 miiiik9, I City Boundaries t-! - - i '$11.6W314.56' ' i 1 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area ; rad f: Ill .. 1 Source. North I-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Run Package B, September 2006 r iPlattevole 1 811.119 Longmont 1 I . r3,400 ions . I 500 Daily Ridership ,ll • .... rvestate / .• . I , .....feri/ • Y hoist • O ine 400 Daily Ridership Elie ag �� o- � Wrttati• i n Boulder A 7 ! { a I _, i • ln,rtwue. fia..t 200 • 1 %N. O 711r•-• 7 e ,% 41Wagon � t! • Red .. asdake iitndet+ t e oznf': t ,,,. . thin' - -sir- -.. i O . .a . r 1._` ,. • l/f DIA \� 2 1 t - ! - r ' / i ter I 1 Denver w `� . V Union Station a . ' � 0 2 4 6 8 10 -\\(\ I ' - I Miles North j / III Transportation Impacts 4-16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 4.2.6.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 Figure 4-6 displays the ridership results for station-to-station volumes, station activity, mode of 3 access for the main Preferred Alternative components, and feeder bus ridership by route. 4 Some key findings are described below. ► While overall regional ridership is comparable to Package A and Package B, ridership on 6 each type of service would be lower than their respective components in either Package A 7 or Package B because the Preferred Alternative includes both commuter rail and express bus service on 1-25 . Potential riders would be able to choose the service that best suits their trip needs. ► Bus and rail ridership would grow steadily from both Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver. ► The Fort Collins South Transit Center and Longmont Sugar Mill Commuter Rail stations would generate higher-than-average station ridership activity. i ► The SH 119 and SH 7 Bus stations along 1-25 would generate higher-than-average station ridership activity. 6 ► Overall, the access type at stations would be similar to that seen in either Package A or Package B. Table 4-6 summarizes station activity for the Preferred Alternative. As shown, the highest • 13 station activity in northern Colorado would occur at SH 119, SH 7, Fort Collins' South Transit Center, and the Sugar Mill stations. Table 4-6 Preferred Alternative Station Activity (2035) Station Boardings and Alightings in 2035 Commuter Rail Fort Collins—North Transit Center 150 Fort Collins—CSU 150 Fort Collins—South Transit Center 900 Loveland—29th Street 400 Loveland—4th Street Downtown 400 Berthoud—SH 56 150 Longmont—SH 66 200 Longmont—Sugar Mill 500 Erie—WCR 8 300 • Transportation Impacts 4-17 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 4-6 Preferred Alternative Station Activity 2035(Cont.) Express Bus Boardings and Alightings in 2035 Fort Collins—South Transit Center 50 Fort Collins— 1-25 and Harmony 150 1-25 and SH 392 75 1-25 and Crossroads 50 Greeley 8th and 8th 225 Greeley US 34 and 83rd Avenue 350 Greeley US 34 and SH 257 75 1-25 and SH 56/60 200 1-25 and SH 119 525 1-25 and SH 52 25 1-25 and CR 8 375 1-25 and SH 7 1,850 Downtown Denver 2,750 Denver International Airport 100 4.2.6.5 TRANSIT MARKET SHARE Each build alternative would provide transit service from the northern communities to • 4 downtown Denver. The transit share of the travel market of commuters who reside in the 5 northern area (north of SH 66) and work in the Denver CBD is presented in Table 4-7. Each package would capture a large share of the downtown Denver commuter market, but the total 7 number of these specific commuters is expected to be relatively small — about 2,400 per E. weekday. Table 4-7 Transit Market Share of Northern Commuters to Downtown Denver Market Share No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Percent that use transit <1% 55% 45% 50% Note: Northern commuters refers to commuters north of SH 66. 4.2.6.3 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP FOR SPECIAL EVENTS I While the transit planning industry standard is weekday ridership forecasts, it is recognized 12 that regional transit service from the northern communities to Denver would attract substantial 13 interest from riders for special events, as well as weekend travel. For the North 1-25 study, a 4 household travel survey was conducted to gain an understanding of special event travel. The estimated additional daily riders, averaged over a year, are tabulated in Table 4-8. As shown, on average the build alternatives could generate up to 500 additional weekday and over 1,000 additional weekend trips for special events such as sporting events and theater visits in 2035. The variations among the alternatives are due to the different corridors that are served with cf premium transit service. • Transportation Impacts 4-18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 = ' August 2011 EIS at information. cooperation transportation. • - Figure 4-6 Preferred Alternative 2035 Station-to Station Daily Ridership LEGEND Station Activity by Access/Egress Type - �•.� %-- N.•-� 85 ilk Size indicates relative 1• •\ C. / amount of station activity Walk / Thepierce ` Ft. Collins North � Drive Fo Ilins Transit Center �.� IIli Bus i I s. - 14 III Rail CSU Ault 1 MI Various i 275 257i Ft. Collins South Harmony Station Activity Transit Center Tmnatt' o Severance Eaton l Stations Ira 400 Daily Ridership 1 Transit Alignments SH-392 Express Bus Alignment I g t Greele - ' 392 - 200 ‘ • i Commuter Rail Alignment D Strey et a Commuter Bus Alignment Loveland-29th I Street 1 .600 200 250 reeley . 100 550 Thickness indicates relative amount of activity on transit line Greeley-Loveland-Downtown 600 RTD FasTracks Stations • oveland 19th Street ' RTD FasTracks CorridorsI - - 800 Evans- • North 1-25 Feeder Bus Routes • g 37th Street �/ : d► la Salk SH•56. _. . r unWon stows — 6 �, . Berthoud „� . Milliken ' �" I I 250 Daily Ridership '+J• j/ Ill \-- I / Platteville- i Longmont-SH 66 _ Mead SH 66 I 900 ,. jattewlle 24 1 c SH•119 I ate a . ifi' Inn1' / Longmont. 0 S00 Daily Ridership i %f Sugar Mill a Firestone 1 ��.4 Ntwot N Frederick I /' i 0 C1m;mo Fort tuftj. �G I . 0 Gunbarrel Erie CR 6 Ft.Lupton- / I.fgli — SH52 JO• Valmont ^ IT l 550 Dally Ridership a Wasenncrg i Boulder o I / I Ni O tatay4 i , • . lnuisvrhe '" Brighter \, "'--� i. SH-7 Brighton N e1G1PPn(1#e _.. _ ,Y %- , US-65 Eastlake y,r.� Broomfield SA A. ' , 200 -\ ern / \ ar — L 1 DIA ti li i. AA 72 N� r_ J. .. 1•. Y. . Y r a1 �Nc �I 1 Denver71-----,.......N Union Station ind ;I ' ---17—Thi 0 2 4 6 8 10 " � 6 Miles North r� a t s 1 ll a -. Transportation Impacts 4-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 Table 4-8 Additional Average Ridership in 2035 Generated by Special Event Travel Time Period Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Weekday 225-475 225—450 250—500 Weekend 650-1,200 550— 1,075 700— 1,250 2 Annual riders in 2035 due to special events would be approximately 209,000 for Package A, 3 about 177,000 for Package B, and about 212,000 for the Preferred Alternative. 4 4.2.6.4 EFFECT OF PRICE OF FUEL 5 Travel forecasts assume the relative price of fuel would remain constant into the future. In the 6 travel model, this means that the future portion of a household's income devoted to 7 transportation remains the same as today. This is standard transportation planning practice 8 because of the uncertainty of predicting the price of fuel. Observed transit ridership commonly rises upon large increases in fuel costs. For example, transit ridership rose two to 30 percent 1 on U.S. transit systems following the increase in the price of fuel during 2008, with rail systems generally realizing larger increases than bus systems (American Public Transportation 12 Association [APTA], 2008). In the circumstances of considerably higher fuel costs, future 13 ridership could be substantially higher than standard forecasts indicate. The testing of 14 increased fuel price scenarios with the North 1-25 EIS travel model indicated that riders making longer trips are more likely to switch to transit than those making shorter trips, and that a 13 doubling of fuel costs could increase transit ridership up to 90 percent. The transit systems17 • included in the build alternatives would have adequate capacity for expansion to accommodate these higher demands, if necessary. u 4.2.7 Effect of Induced Growth on Transit Ridership 2' 4.2.7.1 INDUCED TRAVEL Induced travel refers to the potential increase in travel that occurs after a transportation 22 improvement— highway widening or transit investment— is completed. Different types of 23 induced travel have been observed: ► Shift in travel from other routes: trips that were already being made but which are attracted to the improved roadway. 26 ► Shift in travel from other modes: trips that were already being made but which are attracted 27 to the improved transit service. ► Shift in travel to different destinations: trip makers choosing different destinations due to the improved travel times offered by the new or improved travel mode. ► Shift in travel patterns due to new land use development near the transportation facilities: Transportation improvements, (both highway and transit) that affect the land use 32 development patterns in a region. (See Section 4.2.7.2 for more detail.) ► An overall increase in travel demand: generation of trips that would not have otherwise been made (See Section 4.2.7.3 for more detail.) • Transportation Impacts 4.20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. The North 1-25 Regional Travel Demand Model accounts for the first three induced travel 2 types. That is, a shift from other routes, modes and different destinations are handled within its 3 normal process and the results are documented throughout this Chapter. ▪ However, the travel model accounts for neither potential changes to land use development patterns nor induced overall travel demand. The travel model does not account for land use changes because a separate independent model estimates future land use development patterns. This land use forecast model allocates socioeconomic regional control totals of population and employment forecasts geographically across the region, and provides a major data input to the travel model. The travel model is unable to account for induced travel demand because the location where trips are generated and the overall number of trips generated is determined by the land use data set, which does not vary for different alternatives. Therefore, 1,- the travel demand is the same for each alternative, including No-Action. The next two sections discuss these possible effects to future travel demand in more detail. 14 4.2.7.2 POTENTIAL EFFECT OF INDUCED LAND USE GROWTH Both highway and transit improvements influence future land use development patterns. The potential effects of each alternative on future land use are described in Section 3.1 Land Use • In general, enhanced transportation infrastructure (particularly if there is new access proposed, either a transit station or a new interchange) attracts greater development densities. An expert panel reviewed the Draft EIS packages with regard to induced land use growth implications. • The insights offered by the expert panel remain valid for the Preferred Alternative because it is a combination of Package A and Package B. • Highway improvements are expected to induce only limited growth. The NFRMPO includes the • current trends of development growth near 1-25 in its current socio-economic 2035 projections • that are used in the model; the effect of additional induced growth is expected to be limited because there are no new interchanges. Therefore, the travel generation due to induced growth along the highway would be relatively minor. - Transit investments affect the type and intensity of development that occurs near stations. Many regions, including both the NFR and DRCOG regions, plan to encourage increased :E density of development near transit stations. The Regional Transportation District (RTD), in the DRCOG region, has developed a "Strategic Plan for Transit Oriented Development (TOD)" that identifies goals and implementation strategies for intensifying development near its FasTracks corridors. The NFRMPO has recognized the desirability of developing near transit investments and has taken transit improvements into consideration in its land use model. In general, transit • improvements, especially rail, provide opportunities for increased investment in communities. The panel suggested that the BNSF corridor would experience relatively more aggressive c reallocation of land use near existing downtown areas and proposed rail stations. These - conclusions remain valid today and are strengthened by recent information from DRCOG and RTD. It is difficult to quantify the impact of increased development along a proposed transit corridor. a This is because of limited availability of empirical data. Major transit investments in the western 4' U.S. are a relatively recent occurrence and each transit corridor has unique characteristics. • 42 However, it is generally accepted that TOD will result in: a)fewer"external" vehicle trips 4- because of increased density and the mix of uses within the development, and b) additional ridership on nearby transit services. Recent information from DRCOG and RTD suggests that Transportation Impacts 4-21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 the effect of a reallocation of population and employment centers near RTD's planned 2 FasTracks rail stations depends on the specific plans of each community in the region. The 3 FasTracks corridors with communities actively seeking to encourage TOD might see increases ? in corridor daily ridership as high as 35 percent, while transit corridors that serve communities 5 without T0D policies in place may experience little to no increase in ridership. Ridership along 6 the North 1-25 commuter rail would likely be increased by induced growth in the vicinity of rail 7 stations, and the overall effect would be dependent on the TOD policies of each community. F. 4.2.7.3 POTENTIAL EFFECT OF INCREASED OVERALL DEMAND ci Transportation investments, especially highway improvements, have been observed to increase overall travel demand irrespective of additional growth. Essentially, with the improved 1- mobility provided by improvements, some travelers will choose to make trips that they 12 previously would not have made. : Much research into this subject has been conducted, but because of the complexities inherent '4 in any case study, it is difficult to quantify the effect. Depending on the amount of previously 15 un-served demand, the amount of congestion experienced, and the scope of improvements, le induced demand can range from a minor increase to an increase that eventually results in 7 similar travel conditions as existed before the improvement. 13 In the North 1-25 regional study area, congestion on 1-25 is projected to be widespread during lc the peak hours in the No-Action Alternative. However, it is unlikely that a great number of trips will be suppressed by these conditions. It is more likely that travelers will elect to make a trip in • <1 the off-peak hours or select an alternate route for their trip. Therefore, it is not expected that a 2 2large number of additional trips would be generated by any build alternative. :: These effects are not limited to highway improvements; some transit investments can have similar outcomes for induced travel. The improved connectivity and lowered transit travel times 25 provided by the North I-25 transit improvements would likely induce a slight increase in transit 2c demand. As with highway improvements, it is difficult to quantify the effects of induced travel 7 demand from transit projects. ;a 4.3 TRAVEL TIME 22 4.3.1 Existing Travel Time 33 In September and October 2004, travel time was recorded along 1-25 between SH 1 and 31 downtown Denver during AM and PM peak hours. Five runs were recorded in each direction 32 during each peak period with the average of these summarized in Table 4-9. As shown, the 33 AM southbound and PM northbound peak hours experienced the longest travel times in the 34 corridor at just over an hour each. Table 4-9 Existing Peak-Hour Travel Time 1.25 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound SH 1 to 20th Street 58 minutes 66 minutes 68 minutes 66 minutes Source: Travel Time Surveys, September and October 2004. • Transportation Impacts 4-22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation.ID i 4.3.2 2035 Travel Time 2 Estimated travel times for the package are presented for the AM peak southbound direction for the year 2035. Figure 4-7 shows comparative travel times by segment for components of the 4 No-Action Alternative and Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. r Figure 4-7 2035 Travel Time Comparison 6 Au to T ravel Times l LEGEND I � Sngmeal 1' Sal I to Manoony `r•--t-..."..,..,. N,yhxs rersentat -..s. ‘.; iaism ar� R><ra tal ds raR e,una / s. rxt�eiwr+e+Dci I • . i..� Reyer a Study Area T Paccar e i E Iti.icitt \ County 9o4rsdatres City Bounclartes PencertiMIMIMM' if No re&ale TM Trona Tim OnitliMO 9 • Cites t} Towns ;4 .` I : 1 St t Nsorlpny to US ad 1 pi I/ o u..-..- itsttar ttruswt 1 g a i 1 arr, s • seent.sn atc s ry i, t _ -- t = E wogs?• 1) g 1 tJi • t. Re :uen. Pa l° •6.• 0 r: a •Ill 112 reAsak 2W Try TSW Carkstleat ,__ : rt+i ;eon,: I/ 13�� T 1- • Nt I U5 1¢ to SM Ile , ;li� _ nmerx4Pict_ it. o %PT 1r i �- "titan P :2 w 4 I C.cInneWer Rid Trani Tines r'r"q°A N I y 1 I MtPdz)agek aaarkri i ? r i,, . '=PIP-tend Meeratie le le Rik . .r Tine. Tin tin . '� ( I Bus Travel Tires T- . s rgnr+t / i' a eteaed Mernatwe Express Bus $eseeanf 4 5H 11S to Ertl) , , I 4 - ' ti I Y203!Pretend NISI*Rs f i 0 ; t�r<ag... 0 I• Bus Trent Tcores ANt �rle 41 h . E. O In<, a PinarIG ,?• • rR {7I lq { neared �.W1r71Uiti19tfC .1.n. tL�RrJT I 1 I •• Auto Travel limes K 3T r 1� q F I 2q,�`111e4p Tr of Timis rxb ` flee n ' [] v,•-elk-. I ' 21 Mdo Travel Tres 8 r1 Matson. NOM a scat• 2x73 Tond bone t�e3ionlep I a „t,,,;e. - ��, - - }� " Station F _ ` 4 •.- * i • Conuler Rail \" . . .- t Q Expos Bus Snow II:b�to=11 Meat ja • r • COr101Rler$1s a i 441/4/ ri_— Peaar•>eeRaralso 1 vs i FeSnlifillia,:-‘_ - 3 a \ rteit nc a eP I t cs ��L��NC, �• a i"-± v; It I I _��r JI 1-1.---. I Upham Mae A . \,,, : --J ti h• .4 ! ' Y1 AaWiI t Tend Tinto �' I �'.l i / \,_ .1/4_,Nrit. 0 • 4 8 i 10 I 111) MINS 1107th Transportation Impacts 4-23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 4.3.2.1 HIGHWAY TRAVEL TIME 2 Figure 4-8 summarizes the 2035 travel time for 1-25 in the GPLs for the entire length of the 3 corridor from SH 1 to 20th Street, including the travel time to E-470. The three packages are 4 compared to the No-Action Alternative travel time. As shown , Packages A and B would result 5 in 16-minute travel-time savings between SH 1 and 20th Street; the Preferred Alternative 6 would result in a 26-minute travel time savings over the same section . 7 Overall , Packages A and B would improve travel time in the GPLs 12 percent while the 8 Preferred Alternative would improve the travel time by 20 percent. This includes the 9 improvement realized in the GPLs between E-470 and 20th Street with the addition of TELs in 10 Package B and the Preferred Alternative. 11 Figure 4-8 SH 1 to 20th Street - General Purpose Lane Travel Time 12% travel time savings 12% travel time savings 20% travel time savings SH 1 over No-Action over No-Action over No-Action 133 min. SH 1 SH 1 a 1174t 117 min. min. SH 1 69 107 min. 57 min. min. 165 min. E-470 155 s4 E-470 j m5n. s0 min. E-470 E-470 52 52 min. min. 20th 6t. No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Note: Travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2035 and do not include any highway access or egress time. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Run. 12 Figure 4-9 summarizes the 2035 travel time for 1-25 from SH 1 to 20th Street using TELs 13 whenever they are available (south of 84th Avenue under the No-Action Alternative and 14 Package A; south of SH 14 in Package B and the Preferred Alternative). Because Package A 15 and the No-Action Alternative would still use the GPLs between SH 1 and E-470, travel time 16 savings would be the same as that shown above. Package B and the Preferred Alternative 17 would experience a large travel time savings in this section . When compared to the No-Action 18 Alternative ( 116 minutes), the TEL in Package B (65 minutes) or in the Preferred Alternative 19 (64 minutes) would achieve overall reductions of almost 50 percent in travel time between 20 SH 1 and 20th Street. 21 Transportation Impacts 4-24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Figure information. cooperation transportation. 4-9 SH 1 to 20th Street - Tolled Express Lane Travel Time P 12% travel time savings 44% travel time savings 45% travel time savings SH 1 over No-Action over No-Action over No-Action 116 min. SH 1 102 min. 69 min. 57 min. SH1 SH1 65 64 min. min. E-470 45 47 E-470 46 45 min. min. min. min. E-470 E-470 I 19 19 min. min. 20th St. No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • Note: Travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2035 and do not include any highway access or egress time. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs. 2 4.3.2.2 TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME 3 Figure 4-10 compares 2035 transit travel time from the Fort Collins South Transit Center to 4 downtown Denver via commuter rail, or BRT, or express bus, to private automobiles 5 traveling along Harmony Road and 1-25. As shown , under the No-Action Alternative, it 6 would take 132 minutes to make this trip via private automobile . Commuter rail would 7 improve this travel time by 30 percent to 93 minutes. Package B BRT would have a travel 8 time savings of 47 percent (70 minutes) over No-Action GPLs; this travel time savings 9 would result in transit, carpools, and vanpools competing favorably with the private single- 10 occupant automobile in the 1-25 GPLs. Transit travel time from the Fort Collins South 11 Transit Center to downtown Denver under the Preferred Alternative would be either 12 94 minutes on commuter rail or 63 minutes via express bus. The Preferred Alternative 13 express bus is faster than the BRT in Package B due to the express limited-stop route 14 having fewer station stops than the BRT service. 1E Transportation Impacts 4-25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 111 Figure 4-10 Fort Collins South Transit Center (STC) to Downtown Denver - Transit Travel Time 30% travel 47% travel 29% travel 52% travel time savings time savings time savings time savings South Transit Center over No-Action over No-Action over No-Action over No-Action 132 min. STC STC STC 93 94 - min. min. STC 70 min. 63 min. Downtown Denver No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Preferred Private Auto in Commuter Bus Rapid Alternative Alternative General Purpose Lanes Rail Transit Commuter Rail Express Bus Notes: No-Action travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2035 Travel times include travel on Harmony Road from the proposed site of the South Transit Center to 1-25 and from the 20th Street exit to downtown Denver. Transit times are in-vehicle times only with no accessiegress. transfer. or wait times. In 2035, it will be possible to use transit for this trip using different services in the No Action: the estimated travel time is 159 minutes. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs. 3 Figure 4-11 compares transit travel time from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver via 4 commuter bus, BRT, or express bus , to private automobile traveling along US 85. As shown , 5 under the No-Action Alternative, it would take 156 minutes to make this trip via private 6 automobile in general purpose lanes in 2035. Commuter bus would improve this travel time by 7 15 percent and BRT would improve travel time by 38 percent, reducing the overall time to 8 96 minutes. Express bus would improve travel time by 44 percent, with a total travel time of 9 88 minutes from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver. The Preferred Alternative express 10 bus is faster than the BRT in Package B due to the express limited-stop route having fewer 11 station stops than the BRT service (the express bus all-stop route would be four minutes 12 slower than BRT). 13 Transportation Impacts 4.26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 4-11 Downtown - Tr ansit o town Greeley to Downtown Denver Transit Travel Time 15% travel 38% travel 44% travel time savings time savings time savings over No-Action over No-Action over No-Action Downtown Greeley 156 min. DG 132 min. DG 96 I DG — Downtown Denver No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Private Auto in Commuter Bus Rapid Alternative General Purpose Lanes Bus Transit Express Bus Note: No-Action and Package B travel times shown are for the southbound direction in the AM peak hour in 2035. Travel times include travel on US 34 from the proposed site of the downtown Greeley transit center to 1-25 and from the 20th Street exit to downtown Denver. Transit times are in-vehicle times only with no access/egress. transfer. or wait times. Source: North 1-25 Travel Demand Forecast Model Runs. 2 4.3.3 Travel Time Reliability 3 As northern Colorado population and employment grow beyond 2035, the demand on the 4 transportation network also would grow. The No-Action Alternative would experience 5 congestion , long travel times and uncertain travel time reliability on 1-25. Package A would 6 address most of this congestion in 2035 but as growth occurs, highway travel times would 7 continue to increase and reliability would decrease in the years beyond 2035. Travel times for 8 commuter rail , however, would remain relatively constant and reliable. Similar to Package A, 9 demand for Package B GPLs would continue to increase with area growth . Package B TELs 10 however, would be managed to maintain a reliable and efficient travel time in 2035 and beyond 11 for bus, for carpools and vanpools, and for single-occupancy vehicles who pay a toll . Reliable 12 travel times through 2035 and beyond would be maintained under the Preferred Alternative 13 with both commuter rail and the TELs. Continued growth beyond 2035 would eventually 14 decrease the reliability of the GPLs. Transportation Impacts 4.27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 4.3.4 Travel Rate Index 2 The travel rate index (TRI ) is a measure of congestion developed by the Texas Transportation 3 Institute to measure the amount of extra time it takes to travel during a peak period . It 4 compares the peak hour travel rate to the free-flow (or uncongested ) travel rate. A TRI of 1 .50, 5 for example, indicates that it would take 50 percent longer to travel on a roadway during the 6 peak hour than it would take to travel during uncongested conditions (on days without crashes 7 or other incidents). 8 The TRI for general purpose lanes was calculated by component for the No-Action Alternative 9 and the three build packages for the year 2035. The TRI for the TEL of Package B and the 10 Preferred Alternative is not calculated because as managed lanes, the travel times will always 11 be approximate free flow conditions. As shown in Figure 4-12, the build packages would 12 provide an improvement in the TRI over the No-Action Alternative. Packages Al B, and the 13 Preferred Alternative have similar TRIs north of E-470, although in two locations, the Preferred 14 Alternative would result in a lower TRI than the other build alternatives. Package B and the 15 Preferred Alternative have a notably lower TRI south of E-470 due to the capacity 16 improvements on 1-25 in the Denver metro area . 17 Figure 4-12 Travel Rate Index Comparison i8 Travel Rate Index Summary by Component • SH-1 to SH 14 TRI of 1.00 - Peak-hour Travel Rate is the same as free-flow. SH-14 to SH-60 ■ 2035 No-Action ■ 2035 Package A ■ 2035 Package B ■ 2035 Preferred Alternative SH-60 to E470 E470 to US-36 000 050 100 1 . 50 200 250 3.00 Travel Rate Index Transportation Impacts 4-28 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • 1 information cooperation. transportation. 4.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 This section compares 2035 level of service (LOS) calculations for mainline 1-25 from SH 1 3 to 84th Avenue, existing 1-25 interchange locations from SH 1 to 84th Avenue, and transit 4 station areas. Synchro version 7 was used to calculate signalized and unsignalized LOS S based on the methodology documented in the Highway Capacity Manual(Transportation Research Board, 2000). Highway Capacity Software 5.2 was used to calculate mainline, merge, diverge, and weave LOS. When possible, results were calibrated and adjusted to reflect existing conditions. Detailed level of service evaluation data are available in separate reports developed for each interchange area, station area, and mainline 1-25, these reports are compiled in the Transportation Analysis Technical Reports (FHU and 11 Jacobs, 2008) and Addendum (FHU and Jacobs, 2011c). Figure 4-13 illustrates the differences in the level of service categories for highway segments 13 and intersections. As shown, there are few vehicles and conflicts at LOS A. This yields little 14 delay and higher travel speeds. At the opposite end of the spectrum is LOS F. At LOS F, the number of vehicles exceeds the capacity of the road, creating long delays, queuing, and slow travel speeds. 4.4.1 Existing I-25 Mainline Figure 4-14 graphically depicts existing 1-25 mainline level of service. Figure 4-15 illustrates 1G existing ramp merge/diverge levels of service. Generally, from SH 1 to E-470, mainline levels of service are LOS C or better and ramp merge/diverge levels of service are LOS D or better • during peak hours. • South of E-470, existing traffic volumes increase as 1-25 enters the Denver Metro Area and, with that, come poor levels of service. In the southbound direction during the AM peak ,4 hour, mainline level of service drops to LOSE and F between 120th Avenue and 84th Avenue. In the northbound direction, 1-25 during the PM peak hour experiences ;it- LOS E and F conditions from north of the 84th Avenue interchange to 104th Avenue • 7 interchange. • Transportation Impacts 4-29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 4-13 Level-of-Service Category Definitions Level of Service - Level of Service - Highway Intersections Al- A OM i L ® � A ®-e- :::13 -ii. IND r Free flow, low traffic density. No vehicle waits longer than one signal indication. _ m la oID i \ inm.� ® i II) ® ®�.� m -0 B� m ism Minimum delay. stable traffic flow. On rare occasions vehicles wait through more than one signal indication. CCD OM CC m e ¢_ -- m a j L. C Cram' CD MO- C C- JIMIit —IP- CO co ac Stable condition, movements somewhat restricted 8 due to higher volumes, but not objectionable for motorists. Intermittently vehicles wait through more than one signal indication, occasionally backups may develop, traffic III flow still stable and acceptable. g ttsc e UM on U ji \. ® MI 46- ® ® On i CD CD -Dr ttit CD ID m ®xnen CD arlia ®m—Y Ern CI -s- m on 8r Movements more restricted, queues and delays 1 S may occur during short peaks, but lower demands 1 occur often enough to permit clearing, preventing Delays at intersections may become extensive, but enough excessive backups. cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance, preventing excessive backups. LOS D has historically been regarded as a desirable design objective in urban areas. e ayu, ric . an in CE 8 E MD Mi-0- CC ma am im ®m-. im _4 nimcii MD fit -� m ®rte, 1 Ili r Actual capacity of the roadway involves delay Ij to all motorists due to congestion. Very long queues may create lengthy delays. g as tarn is nu CCmonis e as CC) aMDaC CCD al lam IF cmmo,m ® mm®a=ar ®maim so i m inim al co ® ca ® ®im ® - 1 fir W inn= soi ton alcr, 8 Forced flow with demand volumes greater than 5 capacity resulting in complete congestion. Backups from locations downstream restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of approach creating "gridlock" condition. • Transportation Impacts 4-30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 4-14 Existing Peak Hour I-25 Mainline Level of Service SH 1 CR 34 - I A A C B A A C C Mountain Vista SH 66 A A C B A A C C SH14 SH119 - B B C C B B C C Prospect SH 52 B B B B C B B B Harmony !-- CR 8 B C C B C C C B SH 392 SH 7 B C B B IIIc C B B Crossroads E-470 B C B B C C C B US 34 136th Ave. C C C C C C C C SH 402 120th Ave. C B E. C LEGEND C C ♦ C D CR 16 NORtHEOUNU 104th Ave. - - - AM X Y AM C B PM X Y PM C C C SOUWHBOM D SH 60 + Thornton Parkway C 1 B . LOS A, B, C, Di C C C ■ LOS E, F D SH 56 84th Ave. C B D C C C D T illL. Note: 144th Avenue interchange was not yet complete when existing conditions data were collected and is therefore not included in this evaluation. Transportation Impacts 4-31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 4-15 Existing Peak Hour I-25 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Ll LJ C c SH1 la L C C 0 L CR 34 C L] C N A ,p LI � Li Mountain B Vista 13 III SH 66 IA . Ll C3 Ll [3 N L3 L3 LI N SH 14 SH 119 Uil LI LI ILII "LI 0 L3 ILI 131 E IA L] ' l3 Prospect SH 52 oC C CC ` C Ill C Ill lil Iii IA Harmony 0 C CR 8 C ' C C ' C C C C 1111 C C C LI SH 392 C C SH 7 C 'It C Ill13 , C © C Crossroads E-470 C , C 111 L7 CJC Li Li C C N IR C 'C US 34 C C 136th Ave. C ' C CC " C C, C C C n SH 402 C IP C C C , 120th Ave. „„ 1 C 1.81 C . it l, 16 104th Ave. �I C u 18 C , C LEGEND F N SH 60 At' Thornton U E G NORTHBOUND Parkway F [J IT AM X y AM LOS A, B, N F PM X Y PM C, D C C AMr fAM LOS E, F F N S H 56 C S0DUT BUUNU ` Y PM IN F 84th Ave. C La + Note: 144th Avenue interchange was not yet complete when existing conditions data were collected and is therefore not III included in this evaluation. Transportation Impacts 4-32 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 4.4.2 2035 I-25 Mainline 2 All three build packages would reduce congestion north of E-470, providing significant level of service and travel time improvements over No-Action Alternative conditions. The Package B 1 and Preferred Alternative TELs would operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. 4.4.2.1 GENERAL PURPOSE LANE OPERATION Table 4-10 shows the number of mainline 1-25 miles operating at LOS E or F for AM and PM 7 peak hours. Between existing and No-Action Alternative conditions, the number of mainline miles at LOS E or F would increase, such that during at least one peak hour all sections of 1-25 between SH 14 and US 36 would experience congestion. Package A would eliminate LOS E • and F conditions between SH 14 and E-470 during the AM peak hour. The Preferred Alternative would experience the fewest miles of congestion with a total of 11 miles during the 12 AM peak hour and 17 miles during the PM peak hour along the mainline in 2035.Package B and the Preferred Alternative would provide some reduction in miles operating at LOS E or F for the E-470 to US 36 section, while Package A would not. Table 4-10 Miles of I-25 Operating at LOS E or F (General Purpose Lanes) AM Peak Hour Component Preferred Existing No-Action Package A Package B Alternative SH1toSH14 0 0 0 0 0 • SH 14 to SH 60 0 22 0 7 0 SH 60 to E-470 0 17 0 12 0 E-470 to US 36 4 17 16 11 11 Total 4 56 16 30 11 PM Peak Hour Component Preferred Existing No-Action Package A Package B Alternative SH1toSH14 0 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 0 29 7 17 0 SH 60 to E-470 0 24 15 12 0 E-470 to US 36 4 22 22 16 17 Total 4 75 44 45 17 Figures 4-16 and 4-17 graphically depict 1-25 mainline level of service for the No-Action Alternative and Package A and B in 2035. As shown, under No-Action Alternative conditions, capacity issues would extend north from 84th Avenue past E-470, and include the southbound • direction in the morning and both directions in the afternoon. In addition, No-Action Alternative • conditions also show capacity issues developing between Harmony Road and SH 66 in both • directions during both peak hours. •i Transportation Impacts 4-33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 1 To maintain reliable speeds and LOS C in the TELs, the toll evaluation varied rates to keep 2 hourly demand at or below 1 ,600 vehicles per lane and manage slip-ramp volumes. This is 3 referred to as the maximum service volume. However, because HOV travel in the lanes would 4 be free of charge, demand would not be impacted by the toll rate. Demand for HOV travel in 5 the metro area would exceed the maximum service volume in select locations south of E-470 6 during both peak hours. However, with more refinement to the toll rates and rate structure, it 7 may be possible to reduce volumes in the managed lanes below the maximum service volume . 8 This could be accomplished through slightly higher per-mile toll rates on select segments or by 9 requiring three passengers for HOV use. 10 As shown in the previous figures, TEL levels of service would be consistently better than the 11 GPL levels of service, which would help to maintain their attractiveness. 112 Figure 4-16 2035 Peak Hour I-25 Mainline LOS SH 1 to SH 56 NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) I SH1 5H1 e SH1 - Ski1 A A A A nn A A A A B B DO B B Mountain Mountain Mountain Mountain Vista Vista -- - Vista Vista ' B A DO B B B B B_B, D0 B C B C SH 14 s SH 14 - SH 14 $H 14 C B B B B C A A B B B{ A C C C C C D B ;A BIB A A0 Prospect Prospect Prospss.t Prospect- flfl C C C C B B B C B A 0 D C C!! C CI B C B B_ B l Harmony Harmony -� -- _ Harmony -h- - -- Har,ony CC CC AB CC AI D D , D A A D C A C SH 392 SH 392�i — SH 392 - SH 312 C C L 1 A A B, C B A CD la Ca CC B� B Crossroads Crossroads Crossroads - — —Crossroads-- C D D C A B C C A B o r,B, B DC AC US 34 11S 34 US 34 US 34 1 CD AA CC; BB a C. A C C B SH 402 SH402 EH4112 4 - SH 402 D CG, .; AAI CB BIC D d C B C C C C CR16 CR16 - - CR16 CR16 GI (fi 0E . S A A ( C BI AI C ti 4A El !yD B. B ICC BC SH 60 51160 5H60 SH60 I 'PP EIS 1, 13 AB CB AB '9 l Ef l D B C C D) A C SH $6 SH 56 SN 56 - -.- $1156 1' 'e C" B '1 El A A C 'B IA" A `:C,3 '(. CD Eit, BC BC AB LEGEND t AM©© AM ❑LOS A.,B D. 111 p.... PY ■LOS E, F Transportation Impacts 4-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • - information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 4 17 2035 Peak Hour I-25 Mainline LOS from CR 34 to 84th Avenue NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) r CR34 CR34 - CR34 CR34 - - - © CB Lign AA CBDM CO' P' C D 0„ AIC C C DO SH 66 - SH66 SH66 SH66 - -i C B D C Cr A A C B A A C D C D C C AlA C_ C A A SH119 SH 119 SH t10 SH119 - -- C C D E C C B A C C B A C D D .: C C B B C C B B SH 52 SH S2 SH S2 SH52 9 BIM C C C A C— C C AJ 0 ®® CC BB CC BB CRS CRS E -- CRS -it CR6 D DC DC QQ DC AB D DC DC AQ DC AIC SH7 SH 7 ---- SH7 — SH7 C D C C C B A C C A A C DD CC AB CC AB E-470 E470 E-470 — Ef70 9 GO ® CA D 0O D CB 144th Ave. 144thAve. 164th Ave. 144th Ave C C C B C C C D C C D C C 111 116th Ave. 138th Ave. 136th Ave — — 136th Ave. 9 ® 9 BB l0 BB 0 B C D B C 120th Ave — 120th Ave. — 1201h Ave 120th Ave E E El CIA :_13 C A C B :r3 [ C B 104th Ave 104th An 104th Ave. 104th Ave D C B U D C B C D ;1 A C D Thornton Thornton Thornton Thornton Parkway Parkway Parkway Parkway BB !.r -s BB Cal) ,1 IP A D 84th Ave. -- - - 84th Ave. --_ - 84th Ave. _ 84th Ave. D PD D CA ' D CIA A C D `_--1B LEGEND .M y �a, O LOS A c. Si x . o PM X y PM "'LOSE. F 4 2 4.4.2.2 GENERAL PURPOSE MERGE/ DIVERGE RAMP OPERATION Figures 4-18 and 4-19 illustrates the 1-25 ramp merge/diverge levels of service for the 4 No-Action Alternative, Package Al Package B and the Preferred Alternative in 2035. 5 Table 4-11 provides a summary comparison of interchange ramp merge/diverge operations 6 along GPLs. In the No-Action Alternative, 58 ramp junctions are expected to operate at LOS E • 7 or F between SH 14 and US 36 in the AM peak hour and 64 in the PM peak hour. Virtually all 8 merge and diverge points south of E-470 operate over capacity with poor levels of service. As 9 shown , all build packages would improve ramp merge/diverge operations between SH 14 and Transportation Impacts 4-35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 E-470 but provide little improvement south of E-470. LOS E and F conditions continue south of 2 E-470, even with Package B or the Preferred Alternative improvements, because 3 2035 mainline traffic projections exceed the mainline capacity and ramp merge/diverge 4 operations would be dependent on mainline operations. 5 Table 4-11 2035 Interchange Ramp Merge/Diverge Locations Operating at 6 LOS E or F Existing No-Action Package A Package B* Preferred Component Alternative AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SH1toSH14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SH 14 to SH 60 0 0 23 24 3 5 14 16 1 1 SH 60 to E-470 0 0 11 21 3 5 7 14 1 3 E-470 to US 36 5 4 24 24 24 24 13 22 11 22 Total 5 4 58 69 30 34 34 52 13 26 *Includes both interchange and slip ramp merge/diverge locations with GPLs. 7 4.4.2.3 TOLLED EXPRESS MERGE/DIVERGE RAMP OPERATION 8 TEL slip ramps were typically located where 1,000 feet per lane change could be provided g between interchange ramp terminals and the slip ramp to avoid creating a weave section. This `C typically required two-mile spacing between interchanges. Between SH 14 and E-470, TEL11 • ramp junctions would operate at LOS D or better in both Package B and the Preferred ,_ Alternative. However, south of E-470, a number of ramp junctions would operate at LOS E or 1.2 LOS F. This lower operation would primarily be due to high volumes present in the GPLs. Table 4-12 shows where ramp junctions operate at LOSE or F. As shown in the table, there . are 34 TEL ramp junctions with the GPLs. During the AM peak hour, four would operate at LOS E or F, and during the PM peak hour, nine would operate at LOS E or F in both Package B or the Preferred Alternative. E Table 4-12 Summary of Managed Lane Ramp Level of Service Package B Preferred Alternative Component Managed Lane Junctions AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak with GP Lanes Hour Hour Hour Hour Managed Lane Ramps Operating at LOS E/F SH 14 to SH 60 12 0 0 0 0 SH 60 to E-470 12 0 0 0 0 E-470 to US 36 10 4 9 4 9 Total 34 4 9 4 9 12 • Transportation Impacts 4-36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. 0 1 Figure 4-18 2035 Peak Hour I-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from SH 1 to SH 56 9 L NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) Qf O IA B IA B A B SH 1 SH 1 B B a B SH / B B SH 1 B B B A B A B B B , B B B B B B C B B A B El B A B Mountain B B Mountain A C Q C Mountain A C Mountain Vista C O Vista C A il A Vista C A Vista C p C A Q A C B Q Q A B IA B B B SH14 a� �� SH 14 B C - 116 C SH 14 $ C C SH 14 C B 0 1 IJ G C C Q Q 13 1 El Prospect — Prospect ® B Prospect i^ C C F Prospect B —Et- 1:1 D Q c Q C D B D C D Q ® C C C Harmony D Harmony D — D Harmony D C Harmony — - D . p s c C O a D C B . D D O C C D C C SH392 SH 392 - C D --- ___ SH 392 O C D D SH 392 D C C C C C D D C Q C D� C C D �C .® D IC Crossroads Crossroads Crossroads Crossroads O C D C a B C ‘ 0 ® O C i0 0831 US 31 C {B US 34 C D D U534 D D all 1:33 ' D D D B C D O D B D D C D SH 4024F SH 402 SH 402 C D SH 402 CR16 I CR16 CR16 I CR16 I nR n C C C Q Q SH 60 SH60 SH 60 Om 0 C D SH 60 Q 0 B C C D O C D D , C SH 5641- Still SH 56 Q Q C D SH 56 CO D B C C LEGEND + 4';iH9OUtdi max YAM n LOS C,A. B, U P1.1 )( 1( 141 In LOS E. F 4, ill Transportation Impacts 4-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 f August 2011 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. III i Figure 4-19 2035 Peak Hour I-25 Ramp Merge / Diverge LOS from CR 34 to 84th Avenue NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) (General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes) CR34 CR34 ® "` CR 34 CR34 Ill i ® . C . ® CJ ® I ® ® SH 66 • Ell , ® SH 68 E ® ® ® ® SH 66 - SH 66 ® ® ® 3 T. ® l ® El ® l D C SH119 C a Erd SH119 ® - ® SH119 ® ® SH119 ® © I ® S � Ell ® i RI D C PCs SH 52 . ® SH 52 C . ."C SH 52 ®4C ® SH 52 21 Ell C U 3 3 CR8 ® CR8 — I® CI B CR8 CR8 . ® G LC C aa ® 3 ii) r ® C ® iii D D. D I Ci', C D i D, SH7 SH7 ® , _ , SH7 D SH7 V Is I ® E•470 , - E-470 E•470 - - - � : . , , D a i t ® E-470,. 111 144th Ave. , , — 144th Ave. II , • • 144th Ave.Are ®— 144th Ave. ■ ■ ■ � I IN 136th Ave. II , 136th • • ® 136th Ave. I 136th Ave. ■ ■Ave.■ ■ ® ■ II I II II 120th Ave. I• II 120th Ave. , • ® 120th Ave. 120th Ave. II 111 104th Ave. • • 104th Ave. • • *• ® 104th Ave. , ® 104th Ave. ■ ■ 1 I 1 ■ Thornton I I Thornton Oil I i Thornton I i Thornton Parkwayi Parkway . I I a Parkway . ® Parkway , • II 84th Ave. — 84th Ave. - II II • ® • • II iii 84th Ave. ® 84th Ave. I ® LEGEND • iii *Mainline is LOS F 'I' vuRT*$BOND AM no AM n LOS A, B, C, 0 PM ©© PM ■LOS E. F SOOHNSCONO Ill Transportation Impacts 4-38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 1 4.4.3 US 85 Operation 2 Under Package A, commuter buses would make six trips per hour (three trips each direction) 3 along US 85 in the peak periods and four trips per hour in the off-peak periods. These trips 4 would have a negligible impact on traffic operation along US 85. Queue jump locations and 5 traffic signal priority were designed along US 85 for the benefit of commuter bus service. 6 Commuter bus operation would only trigger the priority signal system six times during peak hours in Package A. Because of the lengths of the cycles and the green time within each cycle, only 3 percent to 11 percent of signal cycles would receive priority request. The request itself would equal only a 3 percent to 6 percent change in timing. These few green extensions Ci would have a nominal effect on signal operations, and no adverse transportation impact along t, US 85 would be expected to result from signal priority or queue jumps. 12 In the Preferred Alternative, commuter buses would make two trips per hour (one trip each direction) during the peak and off-peak periods. These trips would have a negligible impact on 1 traffic operation along US 85. Queue jump locations and traffic signal priority were designed along US 85 for the benefit of commuter bus service. Commuter bus operation would only trigger the priority signal system two times during peak hours in the Preferred Alternative. • Because of the lengths of the cycles and the green time within each cycle, only one percent to four percent of signal cycles would receive priority request. The request itself would equal only a 3 percent to 6 percent change in timing. These few green extensions would have a nominal Lri effect on signal operations, and no adverse transportation impact along US 85 would be • expected to result from signal priority or queue jumps. iL 4.4.4 US 34 Operation In Package B, the BRT leg from Greeley would make four trips per hour along US 34 during the peak periods and two trips per hour during off-peak periods. These trips would have a • negligible impact on traffic operation along US 34. Traffic signal priority and queue jumps _ along US 34 from Greeley to 1-25 would trigger signal priority a maximum of four times during _ the peak hour. Because of the lengths of the cycles and the green time within each cycle, only 5 to 10 percent of signal cycles would receive priority request. The request itself would equal only a 4 percent to 6 percent change in timing. These few green extensions would have a nominal effect on signal operations. No adverse transportation impacts along US 34 would be expected to result from signal priority or queue jumps. Under the Preferred Alternative, the express bus from Greeley would make six trips per hour (three trips each direction) along US 34 during the peak periods and no trips during off-peak "_._1 periods. These trips would have a negligible impact on traffic operation along US 34. Traffic signal priority and queue jumps along US 34 from Greeley to 1-25 would trigger signal priority a ci maximum of six times during the peak hour. Because of the lengths of the cycles and the green time within each cycle, only eight to 15 percent of signal cycles would receive priority • request. The request itself would equal only a 4 percent to 6 percent change in timing. These • few green extensions would have a nominal effect on signal operations. No adverse transportation impacts along US 34 would be expected to result from signal priority or queue - jumps. • Transportation Impacts 4-39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 4.4.5 Harmony Road Operation 2 In Package B, BRT would make six trips per hour (three trips each direction) along Harmony 3 Road during peak periods and four trips per hour in the off-peak periods. These trips would 4 have a negligible impact on traffic operation along Harmony Road. 5 In the Preferred Alternative, express bus service along Harmony Road would amount to two 6 trips per hour (one trip each direction) during peak and off-peak periods. These trips would 7 have a negligible impact on traffic operation along Harmony Road. s 4.4.6 Downtown Denver Operation 9 Under Package A, commuter buses would make two trips per hour into downtown Denver and IC two trips per hour exiting downtown Denver during peak periods. During off-peak hours, only a 11 single trip would enter and exit downtown. These trips would have a negligible impact to traffic .12 operation in downtown Denver. 13 Package B BRT would make four trips per hour into downtown Denver and four trips out of 'i 4 downtown Denver during peak periods. These trips would have a negligible impact to traffic operation in downtown Denver. 14.3 Under the Preferred Alternative, express buses would make eight trips per hour and a 17 commuter bus would make one trip per hour into downtown Denver during the morning peak period. Exiting downtown Denver during the morning peak period would be five express buses and one commuter bus per hour. The entering and exiting numbers would be reversed for the • afternoon peak period. During off-peak hours, only four bus trips would enter and exit 21 downtown. During the peak periods, these bus trips would have a minor impact to traffic 22 operation in downtown Denver. During off-peak periods, there would be a negligible impact to traffic operations. 24 4.4.7 Interchange Operation 25 Queuing and LOS analyses were conducted at each interchange for the No-Action Alternative 2'5 and Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative. If the level of service of critical movements would be LOS E or F and/or queuing would exceed available storage, then 23 mitigation measures were recommended and included in the design of the build packages. At interchanges, mitigation measures typically involved signalization, increased ramp spacing, 3 increased distance between ramps and frontage road intersections, auxiliary lanes, and/or 31 additional through lanes. In the No-Action Alternative analysis, it was assumed that existing unsignalized ramp terminal 33 intersections (where the on and off ramps meet the intersecting g roads) would be signalized in 34 the future. In general, poor levels of service in the No-Action Alternative would occur at most 35 interchanges between SH 14 and CR 34 and south of 120th Avenue. All three build packages 36 would provide improvements to interchanges between SH 1 and SH 7 and would include 7 upgrades such as wider bridges and ramps to accommodate multiple turn lanes and through 3 lanes. These improvements would provide LOS D or better operations at most ramp terminals. South of E-470, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would provide minor interchange 4 improvements, such as longer ramps and storage bays to accommodate queuing. These types • i of improvements would not address capacity issues seen in the No-Action Alternative and, as 42 such, LOS E and F operations would be expected to continue for interchanges south of 45 120th Avenue. Transportation Impacts 4-40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 4-13 provides a summary comparison of interchange ramp terminal intersection 2 operations by package. This table shows that interchange designs included in all three build 3 packages would improve operations to LOS D or better for nearly all interchanges from SH 1 4 to E-470. However, most of the poorly operating ramp terminal intersections south of E-470 would remain congested in all three build packages. ▪ Figures 4-20 and 4-21 provide the level of service for ramp terminal intersection at each - interchange for the No-Action Alternative, Package A, Package B and the Preferred ▪ Alternative. As shown, the Harmony Road northbound off ramp would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Measures to improve operation such as a northbound to westbound flyover were considered. A flyover would impact 11 right-of-way and access along Harmony Road and would have a significantly higher cost. Based on a review of the interchange operation, other facilities with similar volumes, public input and review with the local agencies, it was determined that LOS E operation during the 14 limited period would be preferred to the additional impacts associated with a flyover. Table 4-13 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersections Operating at LOS E or F Planning Horizon No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Component Alternative AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SH1toSH14 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 • SH 14 to SH 60 15 16 0 1 0 1 0 1 SH 60 to E-470 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 E-470 to US 36 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 Total 22 27 1 5 1 5 1 5 While much effort was taken to develop interchange configurations consistent with each communities' transportation vision during the EIS process, over time the needs of the communities may change. When necessary, communities can work with CDOT and FHWA, at their own expense, to reevaluate alternative interchange configurations and intersection control options to meet their changing needs. • Transportation Impacts 4-41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 1 Figure 4-20 Peak Hour I-25 Interchange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS 2 SH 1 to SH 56 Planning Horizon 3 NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SH t B D - SH 1 A C SH , A C SH 1 A B D . , A C A C A B Mountain B D Mountain A C Mountain B C Mountain A C Vista A Vista A C Vista A C Vista A C A C SH14" SH14 SH14 A C SH14 A C - A C A C B D B C Prospect Prospect B C B C Prospect Prospect D C A C A C A C Harmony Harmony Harmony Harmony B _ E A V A iE SH 392 SH 392 B B SH 392 B B A , B SH 392 B C C C B B0 B B B B C B Crossroads Crossroads Crossroads -- Crossroads B B A C B B C D U834 US 34 B B US 34 B B US 34 BBB B D C B B B B C B SH402 - SH 402 SH 402 SH 402 C C C C C C B C CR16"' In B. CR16 B B CR16 B B CR16 In B B B B B C B A B A C A SH 60 - SH 60 - SH 60 SH 60 B B B B C A F LEGEND At B B B B NORTHBOUND SH 56 SH 56 SH 56 SH 56 C B AM©© AM B B B B D C r PM ©© PM "The No-Action Alternative ramp configuration does not include southbound ramp terminals. SOUTHBOUND Northbound level of service represents eastbound to northbound left turn. ' LOS represents SB off-ramp and NB off-ramp. LOS C D,IN■ LOS E, F • Transportation Impacts 4-42 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 4-21 Peak Hour I-25 Inter h 'g c ange Ramp Terminal Intersection LOS CR 34 to 84th Avenue Planning Horizon NO-ACTION PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CR 34 ;.V. D CR 34 B , B CR 34 B B C B CR 34 C O;. A B A B B C SH66 B B SH66 C B SH66 . B • B SH66 B C B B B B B B B C B E B D B D B C SH 119 SH 119 SH 119 SH 119 C D B D B D C C B D B D B D B C SH 52 , SH 52 SH 52 SH 52 C C C C B C B B CR8 C C . CR8 B " C CRB B . C A B CR8 C C A B A B A A B B C D B B C SH7 F SH7 SH7 SH7 D _F": B C C B B D 111 D D D D C D C D 144th Ave. 144th Ave 144th Ave. 144th Ave. C D C D C D C D C C C C C C C C 136th Ave 136th Ave — 136th Ave. • 136th Ave- D D D D D D D D B C B C B C B C 120th Ave. 120th Ave. 120th Ave. _- 120th Ave. D E' D r D IF D .F. 104th Ave. C C 104th Ave. C C 104th Ave. D C 1 D4th Ave D C , !F 1 D F' D D 'F' D Thornton C .F Thornton C F Thornton B Thornton B Parkway 1•F 'F , Parkway .p Parkway Parkway LEGEND 't B B B B B B B B NOR 1HBDUND 84th Ave. 84th Ave. 84th Ave. 84th Ave. - AM X Y AM C C C C D C D C PM X Y PM SOUTHBOUND n LOS A, B. I 1 C, D LOS E, F Note: E-470 is a freeway-to-freeway direct connect with 1-25 and therefore does not have an LOS for a ramp terminal interchange. • Transportation Impacts 4-43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 4.4.8 Transit Stations and Car Pool Lots 2 At intersections providing access to transit stations, queuing and delay were evaluated. If 3 operation was found to be LOS E or F, and queuing would exceed available storage, 4 signalization and/or auxiliary lanes were recommended. All new station access points include 5 left and right turn deceleration lanes to reduce impacts to through traffic and comply with the 12 State Highway Access Code. 7 A traffic impact analysis was conducted for all commuter rail, bus and BRT stations, and for all 3 carpool lots along the 1-25 corridor. Each traffic impact analysis included trip generation estimates for the station or carpool lot, 2035 traffic volume projections for the No-Action Alternative and for either Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative, and levels of service at station accesses and at nearby intersections that would be impacted by station or I1 carpool lot activity (where appropriate). For commuter rail and commuter bus stations, a 13 separate traffic impact report was prepared for each station. For most Package B BRT 14 stations, Preferred Alternative Express Bus stations and for all carpool lots, traffic impact 15 analyses were included as part of an interchange report since these facilities were typically adjacent to the interchange. Each of the following sections provides a summary of the trip 17 generation impact and an intersection level of service impact for each station. Figure 4-22 summarizes carpool lot analyses for the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action 19 Alternative would consist of existing carpool lots only. Analyses at these locations show that three access points would operate at LOS F. 2 Package A would expand most existing carpool parking lots to accommodate future demand. • 22 Package A also would add new carpool lots at SH 1, SH 14 and Prospect Road. Figure 4-23 23 summarizes the results of the transit station and carpool parking lot analyses. At each lot, the 24 driveway access would operate at LOS D or better and the trip generation impact to the major cross street generally would be less than 10 percent. 2.2 Package B would consist of the same carpool lots as Package A but some lots would be expanded or new lots added to accommodate parking demands generated by BRT. As shown 26 in Figure 4-24, most parking access points would operate at good levels of service and have a relatively small impact to major cross-street traffic volumes. The BRT station at SH 119 would 33. have a traffic impact three times greater than Package A, but a better level of service at the lot access. This is because the traffic impact analysis showed that the station would generate 2.2 sufficient traffic to warrant signalizing the access point under Package B but not under 32 Package A. Traffic impact analyses at the SH 257/US 34 station show access points operating 4 at LOS F; but indicated that the station would not generate sufficient trips to warrant signalization of the access point. The Preferred Alternative would include the same carpool lots as Package B but these have been resized to accommodate the travel demand associated with the Preferred Alternative. As shown in Figure 4-25, most parking access points would operate at good levels of service and 39 have a relatively small impact to major cross-street traffic volumes. The Express Bus station at SH 119 would have a traffic impact three times greater than Package A, but a better level of 4' service at the lot access. This is because the traffic impact analysis showed that the station -a2 would generate sufficient traffic to warrant signalizing the access point under Package B but 43 not under Package A. Traffic impact analyses at the SH 257/US 34 station show access points • 44 operating at LOS F; but indicated that the station would not generate sufficient trips to warrant signalization of the access point. Transportation Impacts 4-44 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. i Figure 4-22 No-Action Alternative Carpool Parking Lot LOS Planning Horizon NO-ACTION Carpool Lots SH 1 V Mountain Vista SH14 Prospect - 320 235 Harmony 4% SH 392 50 35 B 2% Crossroads US 34 140 105 3% SH 402 90 70 4% CR 16 SH 60 40 30 B 2% SH 56 60 45 B 120 CR34- __ LEGEND .5 .5.5 _ £ ag 70 50 a ac§ SH 66 - --- -- m.a 7.2- C 4% a� XX XX 130 95 X X% SH 116 - Is oY D 73 ik-SH 52 - 120 90 z ' o B 3% yU ao 13 100 CR8 - B 3% III LOS A, B,C, D ■ LOS E, F North SH7 -- - - Transportation Impacts 4-45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 'I Figure 4-23 Package A Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS Planning Horizon I-25 US 85 Commuter Rail Stations Carpool Lots Commuter Bus Stations 287 1 105 75 SH 1 B 6% SITE A SITE C 65 45 130 85ig,A 10' A 4W Mountain 85 Vista F. Downtown Fort Collins 0 0 195 145 40 30 D St. na na CSU SH 14 A 2% C 4%. Fort C : lineGreeley 60 40 tit 75 50 South Fort Collins Prospect- 17012 34 ,N A 8% GI' ey F 2% C 3% Garden City c w~ Harmon 385 285 257 Evans A 301Yll Y. o`fez: y D 6% La Salle • a M g 287 60 J- SH 392 18 85 4% Milliken Loveland 100 65 Gilcrest C 10' 29th St. Crossroads- 34 30 20 9 8% US 34 US34 402-- Ill tic ~ 60 - SH 402 440 325 Platteville Camp on A 16°/� 45 35 66 `; A 1194 50 35 CR 16 L. A 4% 56 Ber t.< oud 105 75 SH 60 - B 6% 85 287 1 SH 56 40- 30 -`` B3% 80 55 LEGEND 20J 15 CR34 - 52 B 12' ' Fort '8 ' 1% 66 Lupton e € Longmont siteA a8 (re 90 65 ae 2ECL" 100 70 Sugar min A 70Y 119• SH 66 tnr C 5% XX XX X X% 7 Site E 115 85 119 100 70 SH 119- F 2% D 4% 7 � - - 38 144,8 Site G SH 52 105 75 Sri on h a 10i 70 _F ederick A B 2% ® 76 North nLOS A.B,C, D 150 100 CR 8 na na DaconoIP ■ LOSE, F SH 7 230 170 In NOTE: B 4% ® na = Data not available at this location North 25 North 0 Transportation Impacts 4-46 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 4-24 Package B Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS Planning Horizon PACKAGE B BRT Stations / Carpool Lots SH 1 105 75 B6% Mountain Vista m SH 14 220 160 m C 4% v Y z `I = 180 135 L `5 $w Prospect C p 4% ail it 50 30 35 25 Harmony 440 325 F 2% 1% D 8%} SH 392 ,160 120 B 4% m m Crossroads - 65 45 a' a' i na na N' ajt &l 0 !co -f US 34 35 25 70 50 0 0 F 1% B 2% na na T SH 402 465 345 B 16% CR 16 +—__ LEGEND i gi _ t 105 75 tat a -Ma e aS SH 60 B 6% 2- at I a1- XX XX 110 75 X X% SH 56 o1 of B 10 /0 dQ H}°2i °gti, C R 34 ' N le! a o �. 90 65 SH 66 C 6% ■ Carpool Lots ■ LOSA,B,C, D SH 119 380 265 B 12% °/a SH 52 260 185 NOTE B 6% no = Data not available at this location CR 8 III ® SH 7 430. 305 North p 8% Transportation Impacts 4-47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 1 Figure 4-25 2035 Preferred Alternative Transit Station and Carpool Parking Lot LOS Planning Horizon I-25 US 85 Commuter Rail Stations Carpool Lots Commuter Bus Stations 287 1 SH 1 51 31 B 5% 44 30 B 30°/ Mountain lig 85 Vista ii Downtown Fort Collins N. a na CSU 193 147 1 0 0 �33A69 14 10 D St. SH 14 A 13°/ D 5% 72 48 Fort CI lins 2% 3% 21 14 -.S%dh 88 59 South Fort Collins Prospect ,144106 34 Greeley B 7% Gr ey F 3% C 5% Garden City A334 239 257 Evans 21 11 o Harmony B 12/ m 5% La Salle E 287 cat:. E:-- SH 392 74 51 60 B 2% Milliken Loveland 82 55 99 68 B 8% 29th St. Crossroad° ° GI crest 34 D 4% 28 19 B 9% US 34 US 34 402 - III ,. _ ,, 374 276 Platteville Camp on 60 . SH 402 A 16°/� 14 10 66 `- A 5% 35 14 CR16l \ - - C 5% - -- 56 Ber oud SH 60 - 116 86 D 4% 85 287 SH 56 [137 97 z. D4%j 14 10 LEGEND 21 14 CR 34 52 1% 66 B 3% Fort =l 52 _! 9 Lupton q Longmont a� a� 61 42 Sugar Mill SH 66-- 206 153 -c ` - ar nr- s:rr C 5% XX XX A 46 119 AO Fait� X X% aq x- 119 sH 119 239166 _— i l - D 9% o 7 3 ^Frederick SH 52 ® 1 76 117 84 Bri , on co b C 3% ` " U a - North R 8 149103 • LOS A,8, C,D 150 100 C na na Dacono B 6% ■ LOS E, F VN r,,r- SH7 - 251 176 ,` D 5% NOTE: N�h N IIII na = Data not available at this location Transportation Impacts 4-48 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 4.4.9 Maintenance Facilities 4.4.9.1 PACKAGE A COMMUTER RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY An estimated total of 200 daily trips (both in and out) would be generated by approximately 4 90 employees at the facility. 5 At the proposed Vine Drive and Timberline site in Fort Collins, traffic generated by the maintenance facility would amount to less than 1 percent of the total traffic in the area 7 throughout the day. It is anticipated that both Vine and Timberline would be widened in 2035 under the No-Action Alternative, and signal warrants would likely be met well before 2035 at 0 this location. Access to the site would be accommodated by a single-lane approach, stop- controlled intersection. A traffic signal would not be warranted at the access location, and the anticipated signalized intersection at Vine and Timberline would accommodate traffic from the site without improvements. At the proposed site located at CR 10 and CR 15 in Berthoud, traffic generated by the 14 maintenance facility would amount to less than 2 percent of the total traffic along CR 15 throughout the day. Adjacent roads would accommodate anticipated traffic volumes generated by the maintenance facility. Access to Bunyan Avenue (CR 46)would be accommodated by a single-lane approach, unsignalized intersection. 4.4.9.2 PACKAGE A COMMUTER Bus MAINTENANCE FACILITY An estimated total of 190 daily trips would be generated by approximately 85 employees at the • facility. The facility would accommodate the maintenance of both commuter buses and feeder , 1 buses. An additional 130 bus trips also would be generated by commuter buses and feeder buses each day. Trips generated by the commuter bus maintenance facility would amount to less than • two percent of the traffic on Trilby Road in Fort Collins. Because trips to the facility would be spread throughout the day without significant peak hour activity, signalization would not be warranted at either the access from Portner Road or at the existing Trilby Road/Portner Road • - intersection in Fort Collins. Also, the nearest major intersections, at Lemay Avenue and at - College Avenue, are currently signalized and would be able to accommodate this additional traffic. Similarly, an access off 31st Street in Greeley would not require signalization and the intersection of US 85 and 31st Street in Greeley, about 0.4 miles to the west, is currently signalized. The current signal would be able to accommodate this additional traffic. 4.4.9.3 PACKAGE B BRT MAINTENANCE FACILITY An estimated total of 200 daily trips would be generated by approximately 90 employees at the facility. The facility would accommodate the maintenance of both BRT vehicles and feeder buses. An additional 150 bus trips also would be generated by commuter buses and feeder buses each day. - The proposed maintenance facility at Portner Road in Fort Collins would generate about - 200 employee and 150 bus trips per day. This would amount to less than 2 percent of the total traffic on Trilby Road. Because these trips would be spread throughout the day, signal warrants would not be met at the access intersection. Also, the nearest major intersections, at • Lemay Avenue and at College Avenue, are currently signalized and would be able to accommodate this additional traffic. Similarly, an access off 31st Street in Greeley would not Transportation Impacts 4-49 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • require signalization and the intersection of US 85 and 31st Street in Greeley, about 0.4 miles 2 to the west, is currently signalized; the current signal would be able to accommodate this 3 additional traffic. 4 4.4.9.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMMUTER RAIL MAINTENANCE FACILITY 5 The site located at CR 15 and CR 10 in Berthoud is included in the Preferred Alternative. An 6 estimated total of 200 daily trips (both in and out) would be generated by approximately 7 90 employees at the facility. Traffic generated by the maintenance facility would amount to less than 2 percent of the total along CR 15 throughout the day. Adjacent roads would 9 accommodate anticipated traffic volumes generated by the maintenance facility. Access to Bunyan Avenue (CR 10)would be accommodated by a single-lane approach, unsignalized intersection. 2 4.4.9.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EXPRESS BUS/COMMUTER Bus 3 MAINTENANCE FACILITY The facility proposed at 31st Street and 4th Avenue in Greeley is included in the Preferred Alternative. It would accommodate the maintenance of express buses, commuter buses, and feeder buses. An estimated total of 200 daily vehicle trips would be generated by approximately 90 employees at the facility. An additional 150 trips would be generated by buses each day. Because these trips would be spread throughout the day, signal warrants would not be met at • the access intersection off 31st Street in Greeley. The intersection of US 85 and 31st Street in Greeley, about 0.4 miles to the west, is currently signalized. The current signal would be able to accommodate this additional traffic. 4.5 TRANSIT OPERATIONS The addition of transit services in the build alternatives would have some impact to existing 25 transit services in northern Colorado and Denver. Table 4-14 compares the number of annual 26 revenue hours of transit service currently operated in northern Colorado with the hours of service in Packages A, B and the Preferred Alternative. Package A would result in a 150 percent increase in service hours, and Package B would result in a 140 percent increase in service hours over the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would more than double transit service in the area, increasing service hours by 115 percent. The Preferred Alternative has fewer revenue hours of service than the other build alternatives because of differences in the operating plans. Revenue hours of service are the hours of operation when transit trains or buses are available to carry passengers. Package A includes an extensive regional feeder bus system, which accrues numerous revenue hours due to slow IIc moving buses, while the Preferred Alternative has a more focused feeder system. The BRT :56 system of Package B has frequent and robust 1-25 bus service, including 10-minute frequency on the trunk line, to provide a regional transit system to roughly match the capacity of the commuter rail of Package A. The frequency of the Express Bus in the Preferred Alternative is scaled back due to the inclusion of commuter rail. • Transportation Impacts 450 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 4-14 Annual Revenue Hours of Service Revenue Hours of Service Component Preferred Existing No-Action Package A Package B Alternative Bus 101,720 101,720 231,740 243,530 196,980 Rail 0 0 23,370 0 23,200 Total 101,720 101,720 255,110 243,530 220,180 Table 4-15 lists the fleet requirements for each package of the three build packages. Table 4-15 Fleet Requirements by Package Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Peak Buses 32 36 33 Fleet Buses 38 43 41 Peak Rail Cars 20 N/A 24 Fleet Rail Cars 24 N/A 29 Peak Consist 3 N/A 3 • Base Consist 2 N/A 2 N/A=Not applicable • 4.5.1 Existing Conditions • Currently, bus service in the regional study area north of SH 52 is offered from Longmont to Denver on RTD's "L" route and between Longmont and Boulder on the "J" route and the "BOLT" route. RTD also provides local service in the City of Longmont. Bus service also is available in the City of Fort Collins on the local system (TransFort), in the City of Greeley on • the local system (Greeley Evans Transit), and in the City of Loveland (COLT). A pilot program in 2010 has initiated service between Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont called the FLEX. South of SH 52, RTD bus service is available to member cities with major access and transfer points at the Wagon Road park-n-Ride at 1-25 and 120th Avenue and downtown Denver. 4.5.2 Package A 4.5.2.1 COMMUTER RAIL 1. Commuter rail would have no impact to the planned MAX BRT service in Fort Collins. The commuter rail and the MAX BRT would have shared stations at Downtown Fort Collins, CSU, and the South Transit Center, fostering connectivity between the two services. Local bus routes in Loveland and Longmont would have slight route modifications in order to •i serve the new commuter rail stations in those cities. Transportation Impacts 4-51 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • i Package A commuter rail service would be operated as a seamless extension of RTD's 2 FasTracks North Metro Corridor service, with few noticeable impacts to RTD passengers. 3 Because the service would be operated as an extension, there would be no additional trains at 4 Denver Union Station. However, passengers to/from the north would use Denver Union Station 5 and other stations within the FasTracks service district; therefore, there would be more passenger activity at these FasTracks stations. North Metro Corridor trains continuing to 7 Fort Collins could be more crowded, and there could be less seating available for RTD area patrons. s+ The addition of a second track for commuter rail on Atwood Street in Longmont would result in the removal of on-street parking on both sides of the street between 3rd Street and 8th Street. 11 Northbound roadway traffic would be shifted from west of the train tracks to east of the train 12 tracks. In addition, driveway access to parcels along the east side of Atwood Street would be '3 shifted to alley access or cross-street access where necessary. The double track system for 14 Package A commuter rail was considered to be a conservative system therefore, no further consideration was given to providing an additional maintenance road in this package. c 4.5.2.2 COMMUTER Bus AND FEEDER BUS The new commuter bus service also would connect to existing and future feeder and local bus routes on the east side of the project area. In downtown Denver, commuter bus service would 9 circulate through downtown with a layover location similar to existing FREX service. Because it LC remains on street, it would not impact operations or capacity at Denver Union Station. As a result of the new feeder routes, Fort Collins Route 5, 6, and 7 would be extended to the • Harmony Road Park-n-ride. 4.5.2.3 EFFECT ON RTD RIDERSHIP In Package A some riders would shift from the FasTracks North Metro Corridor rail line to the - Package A commuter rail. Ridership on the Northwest Rail Corridor would remain approximately the same. North Metro Corridor ridership would be reduced, by 22 percent. These riders would instead board the rail extension at one of the Package A stations. - 4.5.3 Package B 4.5.3.1 Bus RAPID TRANSIT BRT service would terminate at the South Transit Center in Fort Collins, fostering connectivity to/from the MAX BRT and local routes. Some of the South Transit Center's bus bay capacity 32 (three vehicles per hour) would be utilized for Package B BRT vehicles. In downtown Denver, 33 BRT vehicles would connect with FasTracks and other RTD services at, but would remain on- 34 street and circulate through downtown. This would add ten vehicles to the downtown street 3F system during the peak hours, on streets that currently serve FREX routes. This is considered f= to be a nominal impact by both the City and County of Denver and by RTD; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. s 4.5.3.2 EFFECT ON RTD RIDERSHIP 39 Package B BRT would decrease ridership on FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor and • 4'' North Metro Corridor rail lines by providing an entirely new mode of travel. Ridership at the Northwest Rail Corridor stations would drop approximately 10 percent while the North Metro Transportation Impacts 4-52 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Corridor stations would decrease approximately 26 percent. The decrease to the Northwest 2 Rail Corridor line reflects faster travel times on BRT for some residents of Longmont, Broomfield, Westminster, and Thornton to downtown Denver. 4.5.3.3 FEEDER Bus 5 As a result of the new feeder bus routes in Loveland, the COLT crosstown route would be extended to the Crossroads station. Future local service also would connect to BRT service as applicable. 4.5.4 Preferred Alternative ti 4.5.4.1 COMMUTER RAIL Commuter rail would have no impact to the planned MAX BRT service in Fort Collins. The 11 commuter rail and the MAX BRT would have shared stations at Downtown Fort Collins, CSU, • and the South Transit Center, fostering connectivity between the two services. Local bus routes in Loveland and Longmont would have slight route modifications in order to serve the new commuter rail stations in those cities. • Preferred Alternative commuter rail service would be operated as a seamless extension of e RTD's FasTracks North Metro Corridor service, with few noticeable impacts to RTD - passengers. Because the service would be operated as an extension, there would be no additional trains at Denver Union Station. However, passengers to/from the north would use • Denver Union Station and other stations within the FasTracks service district; therefore, there • would be more passenger activity at these FasTracks stations. North Metro Corridor trains - continuing to Fort Collins could be more crowded, and there could be less seating available for - RTD area patrons. For planning evaluation purposes, diesel multiple units were initially assumed as a commuter 1 rail technology for the North 1-25 EIS rail line. Planning for the North Metro corridor has • progressed and identified electric multiple units as its vehicle technology. Prior to • implementation of commuter rail for North 1-25, vehicle technologies available at that point in • - time will be assessed to identify a technology suitable for both corridors to maintain interoperability. The addition of a passing track for commuter rail on Atwood Street in Longmont would result in a slightly narrower cross section along Atwood Street from 22 feet to 20 feet northbound and southbound. The cross section include a 12-foot travel lane and an 8-foot parking lane in each direction. 4.5.4.2 EXPRESS Bus Express bus service would terminate at the South Transit Center in Fort Collins, fostering connectivity to/from the MAX BRT and local routes. Some of the South Transit Center's bus bay capacity (two vehicles per hour) would be utilized for express bus vehicles. In downtown --_ Denver, express bus vehicles would connect with FasTracks and other RTD services, but would remain on-street and circulate through downtown. This would add thirteen vehicles to the downtown street system during the peak hours, on the grid streets that currently serve - FREX routes. This is considered to be a nominal impact by both the City and County of Denver and by RTD; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Transportation Impacts 4.53 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 4.5.4.3 COMMUTER Bus 2 The commuter bus service would connect to existing and future feeder and local bus routes on 3 the east side of the project area. In downtown Denver, commuter buses (one per hour each 4 direction) would circulate through downtown with a layover location similar to existing FREX 5 service at Elitch Gardens. Because the buses remain on street, they would not impact S operations or capacity at Denver Union Station. 4.5.4.4 EFFECT ON RTD RIDERSHIP The combination of routes in the Preferred Alternative would cause some riders to shift from 9 the FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor and North Metro Corridor rail lines to the commuter rail IC or bus lines. Ridership on the Northwest Rail Corridor would drop approximately 10 percent, 11 mostly at the Longmont station. Boardings at the North Metro Corridor end-of-line station at 2 SH 7 would be similarly affected, dropping corridor ridership by 13 percent. These riders would instead board the rail extension at one of the Preferred Alternative stations. 4 4.5.5 Transit User Experience The user experience while waiting for transit services would be quite different between '6 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Package A commuter rail users would 17 wait on a station platform located along the existing BNSF freight rail line and an arterial street. Package A commuter bus users would wait at a station located off of US 85. Package B BRT users would wait on a platform located in the median of 1-25. Under Package B, the high traffic volumes and speeds along 1-25 would create a loud and relatively less pleasant experience • when waiting for transit than under Package A commuter rail or commuter bus. /2 Under the Preferred Alternative, commuter rail users would wait on a station platform located along the existing BNSF freight rail line and an arterial street. Commuter bus users would wait 4 at a station located off US 85. Express bus users would wait on a platform located near 1-25, usually near an interchange. Unlike Package B, the express bus stations along 1-25 for the Preferred Alternative are not located in the median of the freeway. 4.6 SAFETY All three build packages would improve safety conditions for the traveling public, when 29 compared to the No-Action Alternative. Safety improvements would come in the form of: ► Replacing functionally obsolete 1-25 infrastructure ► Upgrading existing treatments at at-grade crossings for commuter rail 32 ► Providing an alternative transportation mode that is safer than highway travel 33 ► Improving highway geometry 34 4.6.1 Functionally Obsolete I-25 Infrastructure 35 Without upgrades, many interchanges north of SH 66 and south of E-470 would be considered bE functionally obsolete in 2035. Functionally obsolete structures would create safety concerns7 • because they generally do not provide adequate spacing between intersections to E accommodate the necessary queuing. In addition, they would operate over capacity, creating 229 long delays and frustrating drivers. All three build packages would replace all interchanges Transportation Impacts 4-54 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. considered functionally obsolete north of E-470. Table 4-16 summarizes the functionally 2 obsolete interchanges that would be replaced or modified under each package. 3 Table 4-16 Functionally Obsolete Interchange Modifications Structure Location No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative SH 1 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure New Structure Mountain Vista No Modifications New Structure New Structure New Structure SH 14 Minor Rehab(EB) New Structure New Structure New Structure Major Rehab (WB) Prospect Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure New Structure Crossroads Minor Rehab (SB) New Structure New Structure New Structure Boulevard US 34 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure New Structure SH 402 Minor Rehab (SB) New Structure New Structure New Structure CR 16 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure New Structure SH 60 Minor Rehab (SB) New Structure New Structure New Structure SH 56 Minor Rehab New Structure New Structure New Structure CR 34 No Modifications New Structure New Structure New Structure • SH 52 Minor Rehab Widened Structure Widened Structure Widened Structure 136th Avenue Minor Rehab Minor Rehab Minor Rehab Minor Rehab 120th Avenue Minor Rehab Minor Rehab Minor Rehab Minor Rehab - In total, Package A would construct 87 new structures compared to 94 new structures in Package B and in the Preferred Alternative. Package A would modify 15 existing structures while Package B would modify 24. Package A would rehabilitate 22 structures while 7 Package B and the Preferred Alternative would rehabilitate 16 structures (see Table 4-17). Table 4-17 Structure Replacement Summary No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative New Structures 0 87 94 94 Existing Structures 0 15 24 24 Modified Major 4 0 0 0 Rehabilitations Minor 64 22 16 16 Rehabilitations • Transportation Impacts 4-55 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 4.6.2 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings 2 Rail service at new grade crossings and additional rail service at existing crossings would 3 increase the exposure for motorists crossing the commuter rail alignment. The commuter rail 4 design includes grade separations or lights and gates at each crossing affected by Package A 5 or the Preferred Alternative. With these improvements, the overall exposure factor along the 6 commuter rail alignment would be reduced to levels better than along the freight rail alignment 7 under the No-Action Alternative. A list of each of the grade crossing improvements included in 8 Package A and the Preferred Alternative is provided in Chapter 2 Alternatives. 4.6.3 Safety Statistics for Rail versus Highway o Commuter rail transit generally provides safer operations for passengers than both bus and highway facilities. Data from the National Transit Database (NTD) (FTA, 2006d) and the National ',2 Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2006) show that passenger rail systems result 13 in noticeably fewer annual injuries than highway facilities. Over the 4-year period from 2002 14 through 2005, commuter rail had an annual average of 18 injuries and travel on highways 5 resulted in an annual average of 59 injuries per 100 million passenger miles traveled. Bus 6 facilities generally have similar safety statistics to highways. 7 4.6.4 Highway Crash Prediction Accident prediction estimates in the Draft EIS were provided by CDOT Division of sr_ Transportation Development. The same prediction methodology was used for crash prediction • 2C in this Final EIS. Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) developed by CDOT Safety and Traffic Branch were used for highway crash prediction. The SPF relates the number of lanes and the 22 average annual daily traffic volume to the number of anticipated crashes on a particular 23 section of freeway. While the estimation of crashes for Package A is relatively straightforward 24 using the SPFs, estimating crashes for Package B and the Preferred Alternative required a 25 more complex set of estimations. Detailed information about the safety analysis can be found 26 in the Safety Analysis of Alternatives (CDOT, 2007). 27 Table 4-18 summarizes the predicted crash estimates for Package A, Package B and the 28 Preferred Alternative. As shown, the build packages are expected to experience between 29 4,000 and 4,400 crashes annually. The total column is the sum of predicted injury, fatality and property damage only crashes. The analysis found that on 1-25, the No Action Alternative has the highest crash rate. The 32 difference between Package A and the Preferred Alternative is less than two percent, and the 33 difference between the Preferred Alternative and Package B is about eight percent. The 34 Preferred Alternative crash prediction is somewhat higher than Package A or B because it 35 carries more vehicles and has more lanes on 1-25 than either of the other packages. By 36 comparing the predicted crashes to the vehicle miles of travel on 1-25 the build packages can 27 be evaluated on their safety relative to the demand each package accommodates. The 35 No-Action Alternative would experience the highest number of crashes per vehicle miles of 39 travel at 1.41. Package B would experience the lowest rate at 1.32. • Transportation Impacts 4-56 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 Table 4-18 2035 Crash Prediction Comparison No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Injury+ Total Injury Injury Injury+ Total Injury+ Total Fatality Fatality Fatality Fatality Fatality SH 1 SH 14 34 91 40 110 43 121 43 121 SH 14 SH 60 256 972 326 1,210 297 963 364 1,213 SH 60 E-470 496 1,876 560 2,079 530 1,809 550 1,895 E-470 US 36 261 1,036 214 839 301 1,168 300 1,170 Total 1,047 3,975 1,140 4,238 1,171 4,061 1,257 4,399 Annual VMT 2,818 3,196 3,079 3,214 (in millions) Accidents Per 1.41 1.33 1.32 1.37 Million VMT 4.7 FREIGHT TRAFFIC Freight mobility in the study area is provided by both trucks on the highway network and trains on the rail network. This section describes these components. 4.7.1 Truck Freight it Currently, freight traffic on 1-25 ranges from 2,300 trucks-per-day on the north end of the corridor, near SH 1, to 11,200 trucks-per-day on the south end near the Denver Metro Area. This constitutes between 11 and 14 percent of the total daily traffic volume on the highway. s Future freight traffic is anticipated to grow at an annual rate that would range from just over 2 percent on the south end to slightly more than 3 percent on the north end. This would constitute between 8 percent and 14 percent of the total traffic on the corridor. These percentages are not anticipated to differ substantially under the No-Action Alternative or the three build packages. .1 Under the No-Action Alternative, truck traffic would be subjected to 67 minutes of delay c. between SH 7 and 20th Street due to congestion along the corridor compared to existing travel time. Under all the build packages, freight traffic would benefit from level of service and travel- - time improvements over No-Action Alternative conditions north of E-470. Package B and the Preferred Alternative would also provide some travel time improvement south of E-470 with the additional lanes being added to that section. The Preferred Alternative would provide the _. improvement to travel time and operations for freight traffic. It is worth noting, however, that • trucks would be prohibited from using the TELs in Package B and the Preferred Alternative. I Therefore, they would be subject to the higher traffic densities in GPLs in those packages. Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would re-grade 1-25 north of WCR 34, between WCR 38 and SH 56, north of SH 402, and south of US 34 so that the maximum grade • on the corridor would be 4 percent. The regraded sections would enable heavy vehicles to • better maintain the posted speed limit throughout the corridor than under the No-Action •‘ Alternative. Transportation Impacts 4-57 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 4.7.2 Rail Freight 2 There are several existing rail lines in the project vicinity that carry freight into, out of, and 3 through the study area. The busiest rail freight line is the Union Pacific Greeley Subdivision, 4 which parallels US 85 on the east side of the study area and serves 24 to 26 freight trains per 5 day. The BNSF Front Range subdivision generally parallels US 287 on the west side of the 6 study area, and carries 3 to 5 freight trains per day. Both railroads operate branch lines in the 7 study area that serve up to one round trip per day. The Great Western Railroad operates a several lines within the study area which typically serve several trains per week. Details of 9 these operations are presented in the Existing Rail Conditions White Paper (August 2004) 10 developed in support of the North 1-25 EIS. 11 Under the No-Action Alternative, freight activity on these rail lines would be relatively 12 unaffected by highway growth. As private entities, the railroads are expected to manage rail 13 freight traffic growth within their corridors. Under Package A, one new track would be 14 constructed adjacent to the existing BNSF Front Range subdivision track between Fort Collins 15 and Longmont. Crossovers would be provided to allow freight and passenger traffic to use 16 either track as appropriate to maintain both commuter train and freight train movements. Given 7 the current train movements on this BNSF line, it is anticipated that freight traffic could be 18 maintained in conjunction with passenger traffic. Under Package B, there are no modifications 9 anticipated for the freight rail network, and conditions would be similar to the No-Action 2:; scenario. Under the Preferred Alternative, new track adjacent to the existing BNSF Front 21 Range subdivision track would only be constructed for three segments. These passing track 22 segments would allow for holding freight or commuter rail trains while oncoming commuter rail • 23 trains pass. Given the current freight train movements on this BNSF line, it is anticipated that 24 the single track with segments of new passing track could accommodate both freight and 25 passenger traffic. 21 4.8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS 27 Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative would have both physical and temporary 28 operational impacts to bicycle and pedestrian systems. More detailed information about impacts to existing and planned trails is provided in Section 4.9.2 Packages A, B, and the 32, Preferred Alternative of this EIS and in Appendix C. al Bicycle and pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, marked and unmarked bicycle routes, 22 bicycle lanes, and a variety of trail types. On-street bicycle routes typically include signing and striping to separate bicycles from vehicular traffic, or they may exist informally, established by 34 consistent use by bicyclists. On-street bicycle routes are designed to promote local trips, 2,5 regional commuting, and connections to off-street trails. Off-street bikeways, trails, or paths 1 are typically physically separated from vehicular traffic through the use of barriers or by i following separate routes. These off-street bikeways can provide regional links for bicyclists, 8 pedestrian, equestrians, or other recreational users. 39 The regional study area includes numerous communities, each having varying degrees of 4r: existing and planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities. To document the bicycle/pedestrian facilities 4' within the regional study area, GIS data, public bicycle/trail maps, comprehensive plans, and a 42 variety of planning maps were collected from municipalities, counties, and state agencies • during the Draft EIS. The mapping included trails, paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes. Due 4 to the size and complexity of the regional study area, sidewalks were not accounted for under Transportation Impacts 4.58 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. I bicycle/pedestrian facilities unless the sidewalk was specifically designated on a locally 2 approved plan or map as being for the sole purpose of recreation. This section only includes 3 bicycle/pedestrian facility data within approximately 750 feet on either side of where µ improvements are proposed (see Figure 4-26). Reports or documents used in gathering data 5 are listed in Chapter 11 References. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions Figure 4-26 illustrates the three major regional trails located in the project area. The c American Discovery Trail corridor is comprised of both on-street and off-street facilities. This ig trail is part of a larger, national system that provides bicyclists a route across the United • States. The Colorado Front Range Trail (CFRT) corridor is a collaborative effort which is t ' being overseen by Colorado State Parks. The CFRT corridor has existing and proposed L sections from numerous municipalities that allow for non-motorized vehicles to travel along the Front Range from New Mexico to Wyoming. The St. Vrain Valley trail is a portion of the CFRT; however, this is a loop trail that connects many communities within the center of the F. regional study area. There are also numerous proposed bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the project area. Figure 4-26 also shows the bicycle and pedestrian facilities mapped for the • project area with the regional facilities highlighted. 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the 1-25 corridor. However, programmed safety improvements to interchanges and standard • -' maintenance to existing structures might result in minor effects. Under the No-Action Alternative, traffic congestion would worsen, and increased vehicle emissions would continue . to deteriorate regional air quality. This could affect bicycle/pedestrian users, particularly near heavily-used roadways. 4.8.3 Package A Improvements along 1-25 generally would facilitate future bicycle/pedestrian travel, because • - reconstruction plans would include provisions for future bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Widening - activities along 1-25 would temporarily impact several bicycle/pedestrian facilities where they cross the interstate, but the improved interchanges would improve connections to sidewalks. In addition, the new bridges over waterways included in the accompanying drainage design would accommodate planned future trails. Existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian crossings along the commuter rail alignment would generally have an additional track to cross and result in additional delays to crossing bicycle or pedestrian traffic at the rail stations. At the -4 rail stations, the pedestrian overpass would provide a safe pedestrian connection over the rail and connect to the nearest local road. The feeder bus routes and commuter bus service would not noticeably affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities, other than providing an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access commuter rail via the bus service. • Transportation Impacts 4-59 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 4-26 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area LEGEND AV Alternative Corridors M . "/ Highways ,�•"� '� VNeurgton '�. , 85 / / Arterial Roads i ��• L.' : Regional Study Area r - - ' - City Boundaries , 1 p""" ,'� 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area \jriii ns 'Proposed Trail •-s- Existin Trailr•�t=9 llsr: ¶ anaVk 1 1 •tile' V'��I I\ American Discovery Trail (ADT) I • 1 ;; 1�;n'� Timlam• r, t :Se:trDMeFatr 4Colorado Front Range Trail ' • rr�.,� i. + t ,' 1 �St. Vrain Valley Trailt ' „'Winchot �� [gene 1—.392.1 Proposed US 36 Alignment Trail j ' `:WCR 64 Po4d1 e J �. re River Trail Greeley . 1 tVra h \V— _ 1.341—N-,‘: it = - 20th GarthoLCIty r I• -3. , - Q _�. . 1I -�=w. Evans , I• , - ^� LaSalle . / , . - I Campion Johnstown - .- ' 1 ___!j %,, s 'ii 85 / _ mthoud. , 1 '�-tile. -' Q Milliken . t `_ - - -I—_ 56 .. . f �� % A—� , _ —� 1 t .1 I G!la est I = , Ili ' w ,- 1 ,' �- waa , I 1 a-� I - -1 1 -.4 i i Rettentk . t rte'^ •� 0ngIT10111 r �_ • , r GI s' 2 er 1-f-tI - I rl y2yi - 7 ,;. ,O-' C _ ' lone : O ,� - 1 . C.- --1 Vdlmar1 I / - y `-.-4 • '% J I. A d�Rrestone t: I . i4, Nntiot , Frcdmick I. t ' r/':' et f Oarono- rort Luplo, : 7 _ti r,1. /�r� Gatwrfel- p4' I.) ' I I. tzof fLI e f • • Vaif+pJfll , i Wattenbetilg i rll` IBouidet z� • _ i1 •...1��•��•'� Lafayette, "�, - • 7 \\10.Th •.,_ _ •...�, ••� l'vuawlle�' - - Bo in t' 1ii `St>penur t� I r l N. !• g `•\ ��J . �� ' n t •' �.e. i l �e state' Heod rson / '� /-s. &uumholJ 4, r" --U O ``1 s; t0 9 '. , * . �.t►. / Nor / ((\Q� • . ' Vt, N■ ; 1s Thornton t \ era; t /• U - a� / _ -�• a ��i �/ r Cleat`-'tie- el i1' r► Denver. /_- o :4I a_1 �ar . atau.u.. i 25 ��1/ a rJ bale.t+_ d.` .•_'I r��r.��_�. isci.:. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 tip �t�--- / _ ._�...�■ Ie.ta - ,e i✓ Miles North Note: Excludes sidewalks. ill Transportation Impacts 4-60 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 4.8.4 Package B Impacts for Package B attributable to improvements along I-25 generally would be the same 's as those described for Package A. However, transit station connections to existing and 4 proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be located along the interstate alignment rather than along the BNSF alignment or US 85. Proposed BRT service mostly would occur within existing right-of-way and therefore would not directly impact bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 7 However, proposed queue jumps along US 34 would require acquisition of some new right-of- way within Greeley, which could affect some pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities. Similarly, feeder bus routes would not noticeably affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities, other than • providing an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access BRT 11 via the bus service. o 4.8.5 Preferred Alternative Improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would generally facilitate future bicycle/pedestrian travel, because reconstruction plans would include provisions for future • bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Widening activities along 1-25 would temporarily impact several • bicycle/pedestrian facilities where they cross the interstate, but the improved interchanges would improve connections to sidewalks. In addition, the new bridges over waterways included in the accompanying drainage design would accommodate planned future trails. Proposed express bus service would mostly occur within existing right-of-way and therefore would not directly impact bicycle/pedestrian facilities. At stations, a proposed pedestrian • 2 overpass would connect land uses and trail systems on the east and west of 1-25. The • proposed overpasses would provide a safe pedestrian connection across 1-25. Proposed • queue jumps along US 34 would require acquisition of some new right-of-way within Greeley, - which could affect some pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities. _ - A number of the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian crossings along the commuter rail alignment would have an additional track and/or maintenance road to cross resulting in - - additional delays to crossing bicycle or pedestrian traffic. At two of the rail stations, a • pedestrian overpass would provide a safe pedestrian connection over the rail. At rail stations where there is no pedestrian pass, pedestrians would be directed to the nearest local road. • The feeder bus routes and commuter bus service would not noticeably affect bicycle/pedestrian 1,1 other than providing an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians • to access commuter rail via the bus service. 4.9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS This section describes construction impacts for all four alternatives. It also describes construction '- methods for highway and transit components as well as mitigation considerations. 4.9.1 No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative would involve minimal construction over what is currently programmed, 07. approved, and funded and therefore would result in minimal construction impacts. • Transportation Impacts 4.61 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 4.9.2 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative 2 Construction of Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative would create short-term construction impacts throughout the construction period. Construction detours would create 4 short-term impacts on local traffic circulation and congestion. Delays to the traveling public and 5 inconvenience to corridor residents (partial closures where only local traffic is allowed) would 1- occur. Bridge reconstruction would result in the partial closure of local streets and highway 7 ramps. Detour traffic would put additional pressure on adjacent streets. Lane closures on 1-25 would most likely occur during night-time periods or on weekends. Ramp closures at interchanges could also occur. Temporary Impacts to Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The North 1-25 EIS has identified the following seven pedestrian and bicycle facilities which <2 may be temporarily impacted during the construction phase of Package A, Package B, or the Preferred Alternative: a ► Spring Creek Trail, City of Fort Collins (Package A) c ► Lanyon Park Trail, City of Longmont (Package A and Preferred Alternative) ► Box Elder Creek Trail, Town of Wellington (Package B and Preferred Alternative) • 211 ► Big Dry Creek Trail, City of Westminster (Package B and Preferred Alternative) ► Harmony Road Bike Lane, City of Fort Collins 22 (Package A, B, and Preferred Alternative) ► 30 Road Bike Lane, City of Loveland and City of Fort Collins (Package A, B, and Preferred Alternative) ► McWhinney Boulevard On-Street Facility, City of Loveland (Package A, B, and Preferred Alternative) ► Hillsborough Ditch Trail, City of Loveland (Package A, B, and Preferred Alternative) ► Kennedy Street On-Street Facility, City of Northglenn (Package A, B, and Preferred Alternative) 32 ► Ken Pratt Boulevard On-Street Facility, City of Longmont (Preferred Alternative) 34 All of the identified facilities are affected under the potential construction scenarios through a 35 closure. Regardless of the construction scenario, the duration of closure would be less than the time needed for construction of the full project. Additionally, there will be no alteration to the existing trail alignments, no changes in ownership, nor any permanent adverse physical effects to the resource. For additional information regarding effects to recreational trails, see • Section 5.4 Use of Sections 4(f) Resources. Transportation Impacts 4-62 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 4.9.2.1 CONSTRUCTION METHODS 2 The highway and transit construction methods presented in this section were developed to ensure that the project as defined is constructible. The final construction staging and the 4 benefits of constructing specific elements first (e.g., the transit component)will not be • determined until final design. Appropriate public input will be incorporated. Innovative traffic • management techniques will be considered as the final design proceeds after completion of 7 the Final EIS. 4.9.2.2 HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION METHODS • Highway construction methods would not vary significantly between Package A, Package B, CI and the Preferred Alternative. In general, highway construction would likely occur in the 1 following order: utility relocation/adjustments, bridge reconstruction/widening, roadway 2 demolition, excavation and grading, storm sewer, retaining walls and pavement. It is anticipated that the highway would be opened in stages as it is constructed. Sequencing of ' construction packages and the overall timeframe of construction have not been finalized and would be dependent on funding. If the construction methods described in this section change ' substantially after selection of a contractor, the contractor will coordinate with CDOT and the public. If the changed construction methods result in additional environmental impacts, these • will be evaluated in a supplemental NEPA study. Under Package B and the Preferred Alternative, construction of the TELs would include 2[ additional signing/striping, buffers, and barriers. These elements would be constructed in the • 2 same way as the adjacent GPLs. In addition, the electronic system required for the 22 management of the lanes (toll collection and/or enforcement)will need to be installed. These 13 structures are similar to facilities already constructed along toll roads and managed lanes in z. the Denver area, and do not present construction issues. • 4.9.2.3 TRANSIT CONSTRUCTION METHODS The disparate transit systems included in the build packages would require differing • construction approaches. However, some elements would be common to both systems, including stations, park-and-ride facilities, and carpool lots. Commuter rail, BRT/Express Bus, and commuter bus stations typically would include boarding and alighting platforms constructed of either pre-cast or cast-in-place concrete. Simple pre- fabricated canopy structures and other station amenities (benches, ticket machines, etc.) would be installed after completion of concrete work. The park-and-ride lots and carpool lots • would be constructed using methods similar to those for roadway construction, including cast- 34 in-place concrete (curb and gutter, walks, etc.), asphalt paving (parking surfaces), and station amenities (landscaping, lighting, etc.). `_€= Commuter Rail Construction of the commuter rail system of Package A or the Preferred Alternative would :Q. involve three major components in addition to stations: trackwork, grade crossings/separations, and signal/communication systems. These are described below. In • general, the new track and/or maintenance road would be constructed at-grade at the same 11 elevation as the adjacent BNSF track between Fort Collins and downtown Longmont. New • track would be constructed from downtown Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of- T. line station on Thornton. Under the Preferred Alternative, new passing track would be Transportation Impacts 4-63 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 1 constructed at four locations along the line and a maintenance road would be constructed 2 adjacent to the BNSF track between Fort Collins and downtown Longmont. At locations where 3 grade separations are constructed, substantial earthwork would be required. Typically, the 4 commuter rail system would be constructed in the following order: site preparation and 5 clearing, utility relocation, grading, ballast, ties, track installation, stations, and 6 signal/communication systems. 7 For trackwork, the rail, ballast, ties, and other track components would be delivered by rail 8 and/or truck. It is anticipated that other activities, such as grading/excavation and construction 9 of bridges, and retaining walls would be constructed using conventional methods, and materials would be hauled by truck. 1 Several different approaches would be used for grade crossings. For at-grade crossings, it is 12 anticipated that weekend crossing closures would be required, as is typical when freight 13 railroads reconstruct grade crossings. These closures would allow for installation of ballast, 11 ties, and rail across the roadway plus the replacement of the roadway surface. Although it is 15 possible to perform these tasks at night, freight railroads have found greater efficiencies can 5 be achieved with one 48-hour to 60-hour weekend closure per crossing than with several 17 weeks of 8-hour to 10-hour night-time closures. For grade separations, the general sequence 8 would be to build the approaches within the railroad right-of-way and then use either night or weekend closures to erect the girders and bridge decks at the actual separation. For 29 pedestrian overpasses, stair and elevator towers would be erected in the rail corridor or station 21 area. Freight rail traffic would be suspended for several hours to erect the girders and bridge 22 decks. Given the relatively low freight train density along the BNSF line, it is anticipated that • 13 this suspension could be scheduled with the railroad to minimize freight disruptions. The signal system would be installed to ensure safe operation of commuter rail trains and 25 freight trains on the track. It would consist of a network of signals, switches, and ancillary equipment installed after track construction is complete. This network would monitor and - control train movements plus control crossing protection for at-grade crossings. The communication system would use a fiber-optic backbone to transmit data throughout the 29 system back to the central control facility. Components that may be connected to this backbone include closed-circuit television, a public address system, variable message signs, 31 and a voice communication system. Installation generally would include trenching for the 32 backbone and connecting lines, installation of cabinets and other elements, and then connecting them all together. Bus Rapid Transit/ Express Bus 35 Construction of the TELs generally would follow the same approach as described earlier for 36 highway construction. Amenities specific to BRT and Express Bus would include pedestrian overpasses between parking facilities and platforms. These would be erected over the 1-25 38 travel lanes and would require night-time closures of the interstate for girder and bridge deck construction. This would be similar to the erection of new or replacement roadway overpasses. 10 4.9.3 Construction Mitigation Measures 4'. The FHWA requires the development of a traffic management plan (TMP) for all projects (see 23 CFR 630, Subpart J). The plan development process is outlined in the Guide, Developing • 4 and Implementing Transportation Management Plans for Work Zones (FHWA, 2005). It is Transportation Impacts 444 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 assumed that this guide will be followed during the development of traffic control for the North 2 1-25 project. The guide lays out the development of TMPs, subject to public input. Plans would 3 include: 4 ► TMP Roles and Responsibilities ► Project Description ► Existing and Future Conditions ► Work Zone Impacts Assessment Report 8 ► Work Zone Impact Management Strategies ► TMP Monitoring ► Contingency Plans • ► TMP Implementation Costs Elements specific to North 1-25 that should become part of the plan include: • ► Maintain the same number of existing lanes on 1-25 at all times except during off-peak travel times. • ► Coordinate bridge demolition and detour routes to avoid overloading local streets with r detour traffic. • - ► Limit peak period ramp closures to low-volume interchanges. ► Limit closure of high-volume ramps to nights or weekends. ► Maintain access to local businesses/residences. ► Begin implementation of travel demand management programs. The federal rule defines the following travel demand management strategies in the Guide (FHWA, 2005), some of which are already proposed as part of the North 1-25 effort (marked with an asterisk below), and some of which should be evaluated for use during construction: a • Transit service improvements* • Transit incentives • Shuttle services • Ridesharing /carpooling incentives* • Park-and-ride promotion* • HOV lanes • Toll / congestion pricing • Ramp metering* • Parking supply management • Variable work hours 34 • Telecommuting Transportation Impacts 4-65 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 4.10 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS 2 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would have similar physical and 3 operational impacts on transportation facilities. Most notably, they would handle the vehicle 4 volumes on 1-25 and in the project area very similarly. For example, differences would be 5 expected in the total VMT and freeway VMT generated; however, there would be very minor u differences in delay and travel time, which indicates that the alternatives would handle traffic 7 with similar effectiveness. Put another way, the build packages would attract different levels of 3 traffic, but from the driver's perspective, each package would function similarly: drivers would 9 experience similar travel times and similar levels of traffic delay. The exception to these 10 general findings would be the difference between GPLs and TELs. According to the 1 transportation analysis, the difference in travel time between the Package A GPLs and the 2 TELs in Package B or the Preferred Alternative would be substantial, as the travel time with 13 the TELs is about half that of the GPLs on 1-25 between SH 1 and 20th Street. Similarly, although the transit components of the build packages would operate differently and 5 use different modes and availability of service, they attract transit ridership of the same order F of magnitude. For Package A, commuter rail and commuter bus combined would attract slightly less ridership than the BRT in Package B. The Preferred Alternative generates an amount of ridership in-between that of Package A and Package B. However, the user 19 experience and travel time would be different between the alternatives. Passengers on 25 commuter rail have a different experience than passengers on buses, but commuter rail from Zi Fort Collins to Denver would take about 30 minutes longer than BRT or express bus. 22 Key transportation impact findings are summarized below. • Compatibility with area plans: 24 ► Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative were designed to accommodate future 25 population and employment growth, increased traffic volumes, and expansion plans of municipalities in the regional study area, and to be compatible with both regional and local 25 area transportation plans. Transit improvements were designed to connect and be compatible with RTD's planned FasTracks rail system. Highway improvements were designed to be compatible with DRCOG's 2035 MVRTP and the North Front Range 2 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Funding for improvements to 1-25 and passenger rail right-of-way preservation are included in the NFR Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP and the DRCOG Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP. Travel Demand: 34 ► Transportation analyses used 2035 travel demand forecasts. These forecasts were 35 produced through the use of a multi-modal travel demand model, which was developed by 3€ combining the existing DRCOG and NFRMPO travel demand models. Additional expertise was utilized for toll and revenue forecasts. 3cc ► Package A projected 2035 daily traffic volumes between SH 1 and E-470 would generally be 10 percent to 30 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, while Package B 2035 daily traffic projections would be about 5 percent to 25 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative projected 2035 daily traffic volumes would 42 generally be 5 percent to 40 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative. • Transportation Impacts 4-66 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 1 ► In general, the increased traffic on 1-25 with the build alternatives would reduce traffic on 2 the roadways parallel to 1-25. Package A and the Preferred Alternative would have a 3 greater effect on parallel arterial volumes than Package B in the northern area. In the 4 Denver metropolitan area, only Package B and the Preferred Alternative have some effect on parallel arterials due to the addition of the TELs. 6 ► The build alternatives would attract more highway users (people) to 1-25 than the No-Action Alternative. Package B would generate slightly more total users than Package A, The Preferred Alternative would have the highest level of users at over 990,000 daily. ► The transit components of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would not 10 appreciably reduce 1-25 highway traffic volumes because transit ridership projections are an order of magnitude smaller than vehicular demand projections. 12 ► Transit ridership (not including the feeder buses) in 2035 would be about 5,800 riders per day for Package A, about 6,800 riders for Package B, and about 6,500 riders per day for 4 the Preferred Alternative. Station activity for commuter rail, BRT, and express bus would 1F, increase from north to south while station activity for the commuter bus generally would be 6 the same at stations along the route. 1 System Operation: .:0 ► In 2035, travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street using GPLs would be 16 minutes faster in Package A and 15 minutes faster in both Package B and the Preferred Alternative than the 20 No-Action Alternative travel time. ► In 2035, Package B travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street when using the TELs would be 51 minutes faster than the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative travel time in 2: the TELs from SH 1 to 20th Street would be 57 minutes faster than the No-Action 24 Alternative in 2035. ► Packages A, B and the Preferred Alternative would experience similar peak hour operation _ at the interchange ramp terminals but the Preferred Alternative would operate with substantially fewer miles of congestion than either Package A or Package B. ► South of E-470, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would experience fewer miles of 2 ' congestion than Package A due to the increased capacity with the additional TELs. ► Using Package A commuter rail for a trip from Fort Collins' South Transit Center to Denver Union Station would be 39 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative in 2035. Using Package B BRT for the same trip would be 62 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative, commuter rail for a trip from Fort Collins' South Transit Center to Denver Union Station would be 38 minutes faster than driving; and express bus would be 69 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action , Alternative. ► Using Package A commuter bus for a trip from downtown Greeley to downtown Denver would be 24 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative. Using Package B BRT for the same trip would be 60 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative. Using the Preferred Alternative express bus would be 68 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative in 2035. • ; Transportation Impacts 467 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Safety: 2 ► Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would modify newer interchange 3 structures, rehabilitate older structures, or replace the existing structures to address 4 geometric and capacity-related safety concerns. 5 ► To minimize the potential for conflict between the proposed commuter rail line and private 6 automobiles, railroad grade crossings were designed to comply with both FRA and RTD 7 safety standards through either grade separation or other treatment and warning methods. 8 Along the BNSF alignment in Package A and the Preferred Alternative, existing grade 9 separations would be maintained but no new structures would be added. For the new alignment from Longmont to North Metro Corridor in Package A, six new grade separations would be incorporated into Package A and the Preferred Alternative. 12 ► Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative are expected to experience 3 approximately the same number of total crashes in 2035 with slightly fewer injury and 14 fatality crashes anticipated under Package B. 15 ► Barrier-separated sections of Package B were predicted to have fewer accidents than the 1€ same sections of 1-25 in Package A. 17 Freight Traffic on 1-25: 18 ► Package A, Package B nor the Preferred Alternative would affect the current growth rate 19 for freight traffic (estimated to be two percent on the south end and three percent on the north end). In general, freight traffic would benefit from improved traffic operations in the • 21 GPLs in Package A and the Preferred Alternative and re-grading of the highway to a 22 maximum grade of four percent included in all build packages. Travel time and operation would be most improved for freight traffic in the Preferred Alternative. In Package B and the 24 Preferred Alternative, freight traffic would be prohibited from using the TELs. Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems: 25 ► The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the 1-25 corridor. 2E ► All build package improvements along 1-25 generally would facilitate future 9 bicycle/pedestrian travel, because reconstruction plans would include provisions for future bicycle/pedestrian facilities to cross the interstate and new bridges over waterways would 3'. accommodate planned trails. ► Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would be located along the BNSF rail line, US 85 and 1-25. -24 ► Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in Package B would be focused along 1-25. ► Proposed queue jumps along US 34 and US 85 would require acquisition of some new right-of-way, which could affect some pedestrian crossings and on-street bicycle facilities. 28 Construction Impacts: '9. ► Highway construction methods would be similar for all build packages, although Package B 422 and the Preferred Alternative would require additional signage and striping, as well as • Transportation Impacts 4.68 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. installation of the toll collection system. In all packages, new highway segments would open as phases are completed and a design-build method could be sought for any of the 3 package improvements. 4 ► Transit construction methods in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would temporarily 5 disrupt freight rail traffic for the construction of grade crossing improvements and 6 construction of the vertical elements of the commuter rail stations. 7 ► Transit construction methods in Package B would require night-time closures of the 8 interstate to install the vertical elements of the BRT stations in the interstate median. ► Regardless of the package selected, there would be temporary noise, vibration, and visual I,"! impacts, although they would be minimized as much as possible. Furthermore, mitigation measures would be needed to avoid air quality, water quality, and traffic impacts. The 404 permit would assign additional detailed mitigation measures. ► Under all build packages, travel demand management measures could be used to minimize traffic impacts. lE Differences and similarities between packages are listed below. Details are provided in the C Tables 4-18 through 4-21 that follow. 7 Similarities among the Build Alternatives: ► Plan compatibility ► Impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities ► Daily average speed on 1-25 - ► Operation of 1-25 from SH 1 to SH 14 zr Small Differences among the Build Alternatives: ► Total volumes on 1-25 south of 136th Avenue ► Daily freeway VMT • ► Automobile travel time during peak periods on 1-25 GPLs • ► Ridership on commuter transit services ► Number of carpool lots with access at LOS E or F ► Number of structures being replaced or modified north of E-470 • Large Differences among the Build Alternatives: ► Traffic volumes on 1-25 between Prospect Road and CR 34 7:4 ► Automobile travel time on 1-25 in TELs compared to GPLs • ► Operation on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 ► Transit user experience ► Transit travel times between modes ► User safety on commuter rail versus highway or bus Transportation Impacts 4.69 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • i Table 4-19 Effect on Highway Travel Demand Evaluation Factor No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Daily Users on 1-25 871,700 947,300 921,000 990,200 (People) Average daily traffic volumes 119,500 140,700 132,100 141,700 SH 1 to E-470 Average daily traffic volumes 201,500 204,000 212,900 212,900 E-470 to US 36 Vehicle Miles of Travel 16,666,000 17,663,000 17,162,000 17,739,000 Freeway Vehicle Hours of 363,000 364,000 360,000 361,000 Travel Freeway Average Freeway Speeds 46 49 48 49 Daily volumes on northern Reduced 5-13% Reduced 3-4% Reduced 3-13% parallel arterials -- compared to compared to compared to No-Action No-Action No-Action Daily volumes on southern -- No net change Slight reduction Slight reduction parallel arterials Table 4-20 Physical Characteristics • Evaluation Factor No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative New Structures 0 87 94 94 Modified Structures 0 15 24 24 Rehabilitated Structures (Major and Minor) 68 22 16 16 Bicycle and pedestrian No direct Temporary Temporary Additional track facilities physical impact; closures on trails closures on trails crossing for trail increase in traffic that cross the that cross the users crossing congestion and interstate due to interstate due to the commuter rail vehicle widening and widening and alignment emissions could construction construction Temporary affect users of Additional track New connections closures on trails proximate crossing for trail to pedestrian that cross the facilities users crossing facilities at interstate due to the commuter rail interchanges and widening and alignment at BRT station construction New connections areas New connections to pedestrian to pedestrian facilities at facilities at interchanges interchanges and at Express Bus IIII station areas Transportation Impacts 4-70 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 1 Table 4-21 Summary of I-25 Operation Evaluation Evaluation Factor No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Travel Time (minutes) General purpose lanes-SH 1 to 20th St. 133 117 117J 1071 Tolled express lanes- SH 1 to 20th St. 116 102 651 64J Mainline 1-25 at LOS E or F(miles) AM peak hour 56 16 30 11J PM peak hour 75 44 45 17J Merge/Diverge Locations at LOS E or F AM peak hour 58 30 34 131 PM peak hour 64 34 52 26J Interchanges at LOS E or F AM peak hour 20 3 2 1J PM peak hour 26 61 6J 6J Annual Crashes(predicted) 3,975 4,238 4,061 4,399 Crashes per VMT 1.41 1.33 1.32J 1.37 J Indicates package with best evaluation factor value.. ._ Table 4-22 Summary of Transit Operation Evaluation P Evaluation Factor No-Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative Ridership(daily riders) On commuter services 0 5,850 6,800) 6,500 Special event weekday N/A 225 to 475 225 to 450 250 to 5001 Special event weekend N/A 650 to 1,200 550 to1,075 700 to 1,2501 Market Transit Share(percent) Commuters to Denver living north of <1% 55%/ 45% 50% SH 66 Travel Time(minutes) 132 minutes 94 minutes South Transit Center to Downtown (in GPLs) (commuter rail) Denver 159 minutes 93 minutes 70 minutes 63 minutes via FREX (express bus)] Downtown Greeley to Downtown 156 minutes 132 minutes 96 minutes 88 minutes] Denver (in GPLs) J Indicates package with best evaluation factor value. N/A=Not Applicable • Transportation Impacts 4-71 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • SECTION 4 ( f ) EVALUATION \l • 1.ter::. .....- _ , fir.-• 1 �..`.: _ .[ .rte 1 JA vy'r • _ • 1 • ♦ , r ` 1 • _ . . /.: I /• - • • • • • N ORTH I-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation . Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. CHAPTER 5 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 5.1 APPLICATION OF SECTION 4(f) 5.1.1 Introduction Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act What's In Chapter 5? of 1966, as amended, and codified in 49 Chapter 5 Section 4(f) Evaluation United States Code (USC) § 303, declares 5.1 Application of Section 4(f) that "(I)t is the policy of the United States 5.2 Section 4(f)Project Information Government that special effort should be 5.3 Project Process&Identification of made to preserve the natural beauty of the Section 4(f)Resources countryside and public park and recreation 5.4 Use of Section 4(f)Resources lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and 5.5 De minimis Impacts historic sites." Congress amended 5.6 Least Harm Analysis Section 4(f) in 2005 when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (Public Law 109-59, enacted August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU added a new subsection to Section 4(f), which authorizes US DOT agencies to approve a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance • measures typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. On April 11, 2008, the USDOT put in effect a final rule that clarifies factors to consider both in determining if avoidance alternatives are feasible and prudent, and when all alternatives use Section 4(f) property. In addition, the final rule also establishes procedures for determining when use has a de minimis impact, updates the regulations to recognize exceptions for use and applying a programmatic evaluation, and moves the regulation to 23 CFR 774. FHWA regulations (23 CFR 774.3) state: "The Administration may not approve the use, as defined in Sec. 774.17, of a Section 4(f) property unless a determination is made under paragraph (a) or(b) of this section. (a) The Administration determines that: There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, as defined in Sec. 774.17, to the use of land from the property; and The action includes all possible planning, as defined in Sec. 774.17, to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use; or (b) The Administration determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) committed to by applicant, will have a de minimis impact, as defined in Sec. 774.17, on the property." • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • According to the Section 4(f) Final Rule (23 CFR 774.17) a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative is defined as: "(1) A feasible and prudent avoidance alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweighs the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property. In assessing the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource to the preservation purpose of the statute. (2) An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment. (3)An alternative is not prudent if: (i) It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need; (ii) It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; (iii) After reasonable mitigation, it still causes: (a) Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; (b) Severe disruption to established communities; (c) Severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations; or (d) Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other • Federal statutes; (iv) It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude; (v) It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or (vi) It involves multiple factors in paragraphs (3)(i) through (3)(v) of this definition, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of an extraordinary magnitude." Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and relevant state and local officials, in developing transportation projects and programs that use lands protected by Section 4(f). The proposed action, as described in Chapter 2 Alternatives, is a transportation project that may receive federal funding and/or discretionary approvals through USDOT; therefore, documentation of compliance with Section 4(f) is required. This Section 4(f) evaluation has been prepared in accordance with the joint FHWA/FTA regulations for Section 4(f) compliance codified as Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §774. Additional guidance has been obtained from the FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (1987) and the revised FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper(2005). Consultation with officials with jurisdiction will continue through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 5.1.2 Section 4(f) "Use" As defined in 23 CFR 774.17 and 774.15, where applicable and not excepted, the "use" of a protected Section 4(f) resource can be classified as a direct use, a temporary use, a constructive use, or de minimis. These are defined in the following sections. Direct Use A direct use of a Section 4(f) resource takes place when the land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. Temporary Occupancy A temporary occupancy results in a use of a Section 4(f) resource when there is a brief impact to the Section 4(f) resource that is considered adverse in terms of the preservationist purposes of the Section 4(f) statute. Historic properties with no permanent adverse physical effects or incorporation of land into the transportation project, but would require temporary occupancy for construction, are not evaluated in this Section 4(f) evaluation pending agreement with SHPO on the "no adverse effect" determination. Properties that may incur a temporary occupancy, specifically trails, are addressed in Section 5.4.3 Temporary Occupancy of Trails. Constructive Use • Constructive use occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) resource, but the project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished. This determination is made through: ► Identification of the current activities, features, or attributes of the resource that may be sensitive to proximity impacts; ► Analysis of the proximity impacts on the resource ► Consultation with the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource De Minimis The SAFETEA-LU amendment to the Section 4(f) requirements allows the USDOT to determine that certain uses of Section 4(f) land would have no adverse effect on the protected resource. When this is the case, the use is considered de minimis, and compliance with Section 4(f) is greatly simplified. Section 6009 (a) of the SAFETEA-LU P. L. 109-59, amended existing Section 4(f) legislation at Section 138 of Title 23 and Section 303 of Title 49 USC to simplify the processing and approval of projects that only have de minimis (trivial or minimal) impacts on lands protected by Section 4(f). The de minimis subsection authorizes the FHWA to approve a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance alternatives typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. A finding of de minimis use may be made for historic sites when no historic property is affected • by the project or the project will have "no adverse effect" on the historic property in question. For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges a finding of de minimis use may Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • be made when impacts will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). De minimis Findings are discussed in Section 5.5 De Minimis Impacts of this 4(f) evaluation. 5.2 SECTION 4(f) PROJECT INFORMATION 5.2.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro Area and the rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. The need for the project, directly related to the purpose, is explained through the four following categories: Improve safety—Over the last decade, the number of crashes along I-25 has increased, and a number of locations on 1-25 currently experience less than expected safety performance. There is a need to reduce crashes on the portions of 1-25 that have a high potential for crash reduction. Improve mobility and accessibility-2035 projections in the regional study area show an increase of 75 percent in households and employment over the 2000 levels. This growth would result in increases in travel demand throughout the regional study area. There is a need for transportation improvements to address 2030 transportation demand that balances mobility and accessibility along the 1-25 corridor. Replace aging and obsolete highway infrastructure—A number of structures along 1-25 • are currently structurally deficient or are expected to be deficient by 2035. Segments of pavement on 1-25 are reaching the end of the pavement's life expectancy, and surface conditions are deteriorating rapidly. There is a need to replace the aging infrastructure along 1-25. Provide for modal alternatives and interrelationships—Modal alternatives are very limited in northern Colorado and between northern Colorado and the Denver metro area. There is a need to increase the number of transportation choices and avoid improvements that would preclude future transportation options. For more detailed information regarding the project refer to Chapter 1 Purpose and Need of this EIS. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5_1 Highway Alignments Considered e I - uS 287 Alignment L , Would not attract sufficient u- traffic from 1-25. Has high - potential for environmental impact to communities 0 Severance Eaton `1- ,- I lucerne L. !�!�! r is 1--' . -25 Alignment n w -.I Would provide adequate I .' • . . capacity to address mobility, - Love' nd _ la .77 replace aging structures, and 3° ' \ 34 i G reel e y address safety on 1-25. : ;7N\ 71, •;,__' - i_ - ,, r'^ i Garden CH. 402` L .. •, ]25y; warn Jan'',ownLa Earle LARIMER ,.5 ,— Milliken 36 ' l :58 nod I O crew. New Parallel Arterials III and New Highways Would not divert sufficient US as Alignment traffic from 1-25 to address ` kt..i, Would not divert sufficientMill mobility needs plait } traffic from 1-25 to address mobility needs. Longmont : 119 I r. l ( 8OULDE: . • 19 Prairie Falcon Pkwy. 199 / ... - Firestone Would not address mobility t ick needs on 1-25. Ntwot 452 - . --, 52 Boulder r --t _ �` 76 '119 - _ Illal owtl i -_r I I- 4 kit - a / '72� L1 - _ . a 1 1 'I_ st aster - E470 Oonver International Ci Ll _ Airport L s 2 121}_ , ' - ; ie JEFFERSON 76 r.L.C - ,itikkakir*-7„ 5-". r 70 Un . Station 110 4U 70 0 2 4 6 8 10 .fi . ,1 • De 1f@r Miles North .s 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5.2.2 Corridor-Wide Alternatives A wide range of alternatives was initially developed that included multiple transit technologies on various feasible alignments and highway improvements on both existing and new alignments. The process of developing and screening alternatives took into account the following: ► State and federal requirements ► Responsiveness to the purpose and need for the project ► Feasibility of being constructed ► Ability to avoid or minimize environmental and community impacts ► The regional planning context ► Public input A full description of alternatives considered is included in Chapter 2 Alternatives, Sections 2.3, 2.4 and Section 2.5. The following text summarizes the findings of this analysis specific to the ability of each corridor-wide alternative to act as a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative as defined under Section 4(f) (see Section 5.1.1). It was determined that no true feasible and prudent avoidance alternative existed for the project. This is likely due to the current and historic development patterns throughout the regional study area and the relationship of the project purpose and need to the communities • located within that study area. Any alternative located far enough away from the identified corridors to possibly avoid the use of all Section 4(f) resources would not have the ability to meet the project purpose and need because of that relationship. Of the corridor-wide alternatives discussed below, only the No-Action Alternative would have the ability to entirely avoid the use of Section 4(f) resources. The remaining alternatives are discussed for their ability to avoid the Section 4(f) resources within the identified project corridor; however, these would undoubtedly result in use of other Section 4(f) resources not identified within this document. No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative makes no substantial improvement to mobility and safety along 1-25. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project of improving safety, improving mobility and accessibility, replacing aging infrastructure, and enhancing modal alternatives. Therefore, this alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance because it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. New Freeways on a New Alignment Freeway alternatives were evaluated that were located on an alignment other than along 1-25. These options are illustrated in Figure 5-1, and include freeways along US 287, US 85 and farther east (called the Prairie Falcon Parkway). None of these three alternatives was found to meet purpose and need because they would not improve mobility, improve safety or replace aging infrastructure along the 1-25 corridor. The three alternatives that were studied would divert less than 20 percent of the 55,000 daily trips, so they would not reduce congestion along • 1-25. In addition, since no changes would be made to 1-25, current safety, problems would Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation continue and aging infrastructure would not be replaced. Therefore, this alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. Widening Existing Highways A combination of widening to US 287, US 85, and 1-25 was studied. This alternative would meet the mobility-related purpose and need factor but would not meet the need to provide for modal alternatives. In addition, widening US 287 would, after mitigation, result in severe disruptions to the established communities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont and severe impacts to historic properties and parks. These severe impacts would include the demolition of businesses, civic buildings, and parks throughout the old downtown areas of these three communities most of which are avoided by Packages A and B, or the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, this alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative for the following reasons: ► It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. ► After reasonable mitigation it still causes: o Severe disruption to established communities. o Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes. • ► It involves multiple factors that cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of an extraordinary magnitude. ► It does not provide avoidance of Section 4(f) resources. Widening US 85 alone was developed as an alternative. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need factor related to mobility and safety because it would divert less than 20 percent of the daily trips, and it would not address safety problems on 1-25. Therefore, this alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. A combination widening of US 85 and widening of 1-25 was studied. This alternative would meet the mobility-related purpose and need factor, but would not meet the need to provide for modal alternatives. Therefore, this alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. Advanced Technology Transit Alternatives A number of advanced technology transit alternatives were considered, such as magnetic levitation, automated guideway transit, high-speed rail, personal rapid transit, and subway or elevated systems. Some of these could potentially have fewer impacts on Section 4(f) resources. None of these alternatives was found to meet purpose and need because they did not provide accessibility or connectivity to regional study area communities. They would not provide accessibility or connectivity because in order to meet the definition of advanced • technology, the number of stations would be reduced to two or three instead of eight or nine. Because of this, these alternatives would not improve access to many regional study area communities. In addition, other transit technologies were found to provide a similar or greater Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.7 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • level of transportation service at one-third to one-fifth the cost and complexity of the advanced technology alternatives. Therefore, advanced technology transit alternatives are not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because they compromise the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. Commuter Rail or Light Rail on an Eastern or Central Alignment There were eight potential commuter rail or light rail transit alignments considered, as shown on Figure 5-2. Three of these transit alignments were located along the western side of the regional study area and were ultimately included as a part of both Package A and the Preferred Alternative, because they would meet purpose and need when combined with improvements to 1-25. These three include the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) to Regional Transportation District (RTD) Northwest Rail, BNSF to RTD North Metro, and US 287 to FasTracks Northwest Rail. Commuter rail alignments in the central part of the corridor were also studied. These alignments would likely adversely affect and result in a direct use of seven historic farms and result in a direct use of two recreation areas. Additionally, these alignments would cause severe impact to known habitat and populations of Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, a federally threatened species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Because the new rail alignment would cross rivers and wetlands resulting in severe impacts to 48 acres of wetlands and other Waters of the U.S., even if the impacts were mitigated, it would be difficult to fully replace the current habitat value. It was also determined that these alignments would provide access to 30 percent less population and employment. As a result, transit ridership would be 30 percent lower and the residents and employees served by the western alignments would • not have access to a public transit mode. Therefore, these alignments are not feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives for the following reasons: ► They would compromise the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. ► After reasonable mitigation they still cause severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes. ► They involve multiple factors that cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of an extraordinary magnitude. ► They do not provide avoidance of Section 4(f) resources. Three transit alignments were considered along the eastern side of the regional study area. The future work trips between the eastern communities and the Denver metropolitan area are estimated to be just over 9,000 a day. By comparison, the future work trips between the western communities and the Denver metropolitan area are estimated to be almost 15,000 a day. This difference in future work trips is substantial. As a result, the eastern side transit alignments were determined not to be feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives because it would compromise the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need element of improving mobility or accessibility. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-8 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Light Rail Technology Light rail technology was studied on various alignments. This technology would result in a projected travel time double that of other potential transit modes because the speeds of light rail are not as great as those under other transit technologies. Travel time is a substantial component in estimating transit ridership. A doubling of travel times would reduce transit ridership by at least half. Therefore, this technology was determined not to be a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would compromise the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. Modal Alternatives as a Stand-Alone The possibility of advancing only commuter rail or BRT (including the BRT stations), or just 1-25 improvements as a stand-alone alternative was explored. Making only commuter rail improvements without any improvements to 1-25 would result in: ► Insufficient reductions in 1-25 traffic volumes to meet the purpose and need objective of addressing future congestion and mobility. ► Continued and worsening safety problems on 1-25, thus not meeting the safety objective of the purpose and need. ► No replacement of aging infrastructure along 1-25, thus not meeting this purpose and need objective. • Making only BRT improvements along 1-25 would do nothing to improve mobility for automobile and truck drivers on 1-25. Making only highway improvements would not address the aspect of purpose and need to provide additional modal options for travelers. Therefore, these alternatives were determined not to be feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives because they would compromise the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-2 Transit Alignments Considered LEGEND Mode Alignment Considered BNSF to RTD Rail Northwest Rail BNSF to RTD Rail , . L Wellington North Metro ,...- UPRR and 1-25 to ,67' RTD Northwest Rail Rail riret-sa UPRR and I-25 to Rail • - 14 "" RTD North Metro ( 1 I-25 to RTD Rail ' F . I - i C t6 North Metro s 6' 1-25 Bus or Rail GrO I 8LSI Dent Line to RTD 671 p wind.,., ' GWR North Metro Bus or Rail I GWR and UPRR .--Lov : nd f to Denver Rail :u. se Greel = - �.\ `.mini .. ,• - �� US 85 to Denver Bus Only X402 2 7 av and DIA 80 CR 50 town La g US 287 to FasTracks 60. Northwest Rail Bus Only Corridor : 58 NM , I 6 eta 2 Planned RTD FasTracks Commuter 2 JQQ- Rail Corridor III CR34 .1 ) J twin 66 /t\ / Loingn>�ont c� k '.7) r _ „� — f36i I M O U L D E(;. ! ''-as' trattoria 287 radon swot 4 Dg• no - Boulder Er10 ` 25 76 r -..— ‘„,,,,119'd x' J--J 7 Lafayette 7 - :r. 36 LouI viii _ - : j Sri on • 'IX- :l H'I N. ' Upend'', Broomn-IC f h____ .. ► CO N 72 Ncrthwcst- l` Hail Corridor) North nn '' - gmintier North 7 E470 Denver Metro International - • • f Corridor] Airport JEFFERSON ) -- ~ • • 1 t _ • , - fiY r Station So z 4 6 8 10 / 6 • De ver �� ttt>, Mies North - III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 5.2.3 Alternatives Following is a brief description of the alternatives examined in this Final EIS. For more detailed information please see Chapter 2 Alternatives. 5.2.3.1 PACKAGE A Package A includes the addition of general purpose (GP) plus auxiliary lanes along 1-25, commuter rail from Fort Collins to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station, and commuter bus along US 85 with alternating service to Denver International Airport (DIA). Package A also includes interchange improvements, feeder bus, stations, maintenance facility, and carpool lots. See Figure 5-3 for an overview of Package A. Components associated with Package A are as follows: ► A-H1 Safety Improvements: I-25, State Highway 1 (SH 1) to SH 14 ► A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: I-25, SH 14 to SH 60 ► A-H3 GP Highway Improvements: I-25, SH 60 to E-470 ► A-H4 Structure Upgrades: 1-25, E-470 to US 36 • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-3 Package A 5 LEGEND SM 1 New General Purpose Lane IN a. (GPL) in Each Direction 1 .-- Correct geometric .C\ ` "'°ur'" "ats deficiencies • • • 1 New General Purpose Lane 4 and replace aging (GPL) + Auxiliary Lane in Each infrastructure Direction Fort Tranvt Gerd BN5F and Maple St. ® y Ara�• Commuter Rail (CR) csu- MasonSi. between University Ave. and W. Patin St iir Commuter Bus (CB) Service on Fort_ • • Ilins ' °ro`°'" I ice: US 85 Souls Fort Collins Transtt ce Mason S. and W.Fairway L • Hammy ' lmnatli feer.r.Sumo Eaton Feeder Bus Service �� Lucerne -� ♦ S '% • Interchange Upgrades 8ri -. Winds us � 34 Cratro�0r Bivt �Id o.fit. © Number of Lanes C Love lid • North Loveland- BNSF and 29th St. • r SoutfyGreeley Q Commuter Bus Station / Stop IDowntownLoveland -BNSF • • • 's' Greele Ave,and 2L ff approximately 6th St �� Gorden City O Commuter Rail Station 02 6+ Eve . t Evans-uses -SCR IS R 50 aryl 42nd SL FasTracks Rail Line LARIMER `� �� "'"' `'s'"' • so .. %aloud-Blend S1 ` Milliken O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station 66 Gf re i Potential Commuter Rail 6 Operational & Maintenance Facility sst CR34 WELD Mod Pt.et..yn ■ Potential Commuter Bus ,(7; Operational & Maintenance 6 " °"us 85ettd6nrtdA Pea. 0 Facility Longmont .• _J,9' 36 ei �QOULDER 6 85 4 1B , Balm 521 •I-25 and'MR 8-Nw,--,'5^ 0 .�{ corner of 1-25 and CR 8 viva 0 Diti+ne uple■ Erie , - oulder 8 76 ' ' .. I. sett.i. 7 '� t 36( .wt �V �� - ' 13 re Right-of-Way Rail rridor s • 5 Preservation upers• • Tab wr'rton I 3 r — - - - - a' • Cam ell 6 m • Implement it ,ter a North Metro "E470: Demmer No-Action n. 0 Corridor ynt.rnetien.l Airport Alternative , • B4M4 1 Z Projects • —' , JEFFER - OP, � t �� .I L_ - , _ J l 0170 ' - IPPNufl1OnGenve.Canon V\I B ' IN Den er 3 iv: z /b 2 4 r. x 1u r_ li m�uda North II Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-12 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► A-T1 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont ► A-T2 Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro ► A-T3 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver ► A-T4 Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver Union Station (DUS) One additional GP lane would be added to 1-25 in each direction from SH 14 south to SH 66. The segment of 1-25 from SH 66 south to SH 52 is under construction and scheduled for near- term completion, therefore, it is not addressed as part of this project. From SH 52 south to E-470, an additional lane would be added to make an eight-lane cross-section. Interchanges would be upgraded or modified if necessary to accommodate future traffic volumes at Level of Service (LOS) D. LOS is a rating of traffic operating conditions determined by calculating delay and average speed and comparing traffic volumes to available capacity along a roadway. LOS A is the best rating, while LOS F is the worst rating. Interchanges considered to be aging would be completely replaced. The Alternatives Development and Screening Report, August 2007, includes more detail on the proposed interchange configurations. Double-tracked commuter rail service would be in place from downtown Fort Collins at University Avenue and Maple Street along the BNSF right-of-way to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor end-of-line station at 1st Street and Terry Street in Longmont. New commuter rail tracks would be added east of the existing freight rail tracks, and both sets of tracks would be used by commuter rail and freight rail. On the alignment's northern end in Fort Collins, from • Mason Street and University Avenue to Mason Street and Maple Street, commuter rail service would be added to the existing freight rail tracks. In addition, a new double track line would be built from the 3rd Street in Longmont (connecting to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor and to the commuter rail to Fort Collins)to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. A 500-foot section of single tracking would be built in the vicinity of the historic Loveland Depot. The primary reasons this option was not retained in Package A include: ► Single tracking limited flexibility associated with track maintenance that could result in stranding transit dependent populations as there is no other regional transit service. Single tracking compromises the train schedule reliability with potential closures and schedule adjustments because of the reliance on passing track and sharing the infrastructure with freight. This issue does not affect the Preferred Alternative because of the express bus service provided along the 1-25 corridor, if needed could accommodate regional commuter rail passengers for short-term durations. ► Single tracking for Package A precludes the ability to expand transit service with more frequent train service because the amount of service relies on the length and location of passing track, which once in place does not allow much flexibility in scheduling. ► Reduced rail service to downtown Fort Collins , necessitated because of single tracking to avoid the historic properties, did not satisfy the transit travel demand generated by the area. ► Single tracking in Package A, does not respond to the projected transit demand from the • Fort Collins area for the 1-25 and US 287 corridors. The level of service that could be provided would result in unmet transit demand along these two corridors. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • In conclusion, a rail service scenario with only single tracking and no transit service along 1-25 would not meet the project purpose and need. The element of purpose and need related to mode choice and meeting projected demand for transit service along both the 1-25 and the US 287 corridors is not met. The commuter rail service would run every 30 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods when demand is highest and every hour in the off-peak periods. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station where it would continue on to DUS; a transfer would not be necessary. To reach Boulder, northern Colorado riders would transfer to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor line at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont, which would use the new rail segment extending from the proposed Northwest Rail Corridor end-of-line station at 1st and Terry Streets to connect to the Sugar Mill Station. Two sites are being evaluated for a commuter rail maintenance facility: Vine and Timberline in Fort Collins or CR 46 and US 287 in Berthoud. Nine station locations are planned for commuter rail. They are detailed in Section 2.2.2.4 of this Final EIS. Package A also includes a commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to DUS and DIA. This service would operate every 30 minutes in the AM and PM peak hours and every hour during the off-peak periods. Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at signalized intersections, would be included to help achieve reliable speeds for bus service. Two maintenance facilities are being evaluated in conjunction with the commuter bus service: Portner Road and Trilby in Fort Collins, and 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley. In addition, five commuter bus stations are proposed. Four feeder bus routes are proposed to enable riders to access the commuter rail and the commuter bus via local bus service. Many potential congestion management measures are included as enhancements to the • packages, including carpool and vanpools, supportive land use policies, signal coordination, incident management, and increased use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 5.2.3.2 PACKAGE B Package B includes Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operating on the TEL. This improvement package consists of adding one buffer-separated express lane in each direction along the entire 1-25 corridor, except between SH 60 and Harmony Road where two barrier-separated lanes would be added in each direction. The Tolled Express Lanes would be managed similarly to other toll lanes currently within the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) system. Electronic payment via transmitter is required. There are no tollbooths and no cash would be accepted. Similar to Package A, interchanges would be upgraded or modified if necessary to accommodate future traffic volumes at LOS D. Interchanges considered to be aging would be completely replaced. See Chapter 2 Alternatives and Figure 5-4 for an overview of this Package. Components associated with Package B are as follows: ► B-H1 Safety Improvements: 1-25, SH 1 to SH 14 ► B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: I-25, SH 14 to SH 60 ► B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: I-25, SH 60 to E-470 ► B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: 1-25, E-470 to 70th Avenue ► B-T1 Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to DUS • ► B-T2 Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins to DIA Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-14 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. BRT services would operate from Fort Collins and Greeley to DUS, utilizing the express lanes along 1-25. The service from Fort Collins would begin at the Fort Collins South Transit Center, and operate along Harmony Road in mixed traffic until accessing 1-25 at its interchange with Harmony Road. In addition, BRT service would operate from Fort Collins to DIA. During peak hours, buses would depart every 20 minutes with two going to DUS and one going to DIA. During off-peak hours, buses would depart every 30 minutes: one to DUS and one to DIA. Service from Greeley would begin at the 8th Street and 8th Avenue Transit Center in downtown Greeley, and include stops along US 34, in mixed traffic, until turning north to serve the BRT station at Crossroads. The bus would operate in shared general-purpose lanes along with mixed traffic along US 34. Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at signalized intersections, would be included to help achieve reliable speeds for bus services. Two maintenance facilities are being evaluated in conjunction with the bus service, as well as 12 bus rapid transit stations. Many potential congestion management measures are included as enhancements to the packages, including carpool and vanpools, supportive land use policies, signal coordination, incident management, and increased use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-4 Package B Sill LEGEND ,8s 4. 1 Buffer-Separated Tolled ','- Correct geometric Express Lane (TEL) in Each deficiencies Direction i877 4 and replace aging infrastructure IN • IN 2 Barrier-Separated Tolled ..14. Aoki Express Lanes (TEL) in Each Harmony Rd.and Direction Timberline - Fort cdinsJ ` 4/2 l� re • -- South Fort Collins Transit Center - Co i 5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route US 287 and Harmony Rd., Fort CdlhS— • • 0, (Uses TELs on 1-25) �' _ Iner t: 1-25 and Harmony Rd. - Fort Cdlinsi— I �y i Feeder Bus Service [Windsor - 1-25 andSH392 - • <-, Minden T r,. 287• Ave.a 4,0 Interchange Upgrades Crowoa•hBNd 4/4 I 8th St,Greeley Lovel • nd eis 1. Number of Lanes: General 34 3, • Greeley- 0 Purpose/Tolled Express Lanes . Gorda Ci ty -- - CR 1 257 Sumo • (S Bus Rapid Transit Station „--- sop). • dL so e i L' Jeeaetewe L.Salle Berthoud= ". r,: 60 FasTracks Rail Line �_ - Milliken © FasTracks / RTD Transit Station ••t•* G r. ARIMER A /2 Potential Commuter Bus a. 4 Operational & Maintenance 36 CR34 WELD Facility )\ --.. ++f ryes* Flrest . I �� ongmont • . IV-. 0 36 I Less .,O U l D E R„18 PNetewe -a7. I wet , - • • 62 1p • , i : icluDacmw: m ` err and SH 52 - Erie 6/2 • s=oulder,- 76 1-25 and SH7 e L y.tt. 7 , • • 931 ` • � Right-of-Way Ili + _1 Preservation Broomfield' Northwest to nee Rail Corridor L- nit • North 72 • ` Metro E47 . let..tlnal lir,6..4/2 2 Corridor Airport 1121' tik ! " V/ JEFFER ON `p.1 �� ... • I1.. VP fl E`. U/1fGri 'Saha(' 6 'IV___ M.40 MI Den er Z\ , .✓ . i r_LL ie, North Ill Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 5.2.3.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Packages A and B including multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. These involve the addition of GP lanes, auxiliary lanes, and TEL along 1-25; commuter rail from Fort Collins to the proposed FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station, commuter bus along US 85 with alternating service to Denver International Airport (DIA), and express bus operating in the TEL along 1-25 between Ft Collins and Denver. The Preferred Alternative also includes interchange improvements, feeder bus, stations, maintenance facilities, and carpool lots. See Figure 5-5 for an overview of the Preferred Alternative. Components associated with the Preferred Alternative are as follows: ► 1-25 Improvements: SH 1 to US 36 ► Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to FasTracks North Metro ► 1-25 Express Bus: Ft. Collins/Greeley to DUS/DIA ► US 85 Commuter Bus: Greeley to DUS One additional GP lane would be added to 1-25 in each direction from SH 14 south to SH 66. One additional TEL would be added to 1-25 in each direction from SH14 south to US 36. The segment of 1-25 from SH 66 south to SH 52 has been completed; therefore, it is not addressed as part of this project. From SH 52 south to E-470, an additional lane would be added to make an eight-lane cross-section. Interchanges would be upgraded or modified • if necessary to accommodate future traffic volumes at LOS D. Interchanges considered to be aging would be completely replaced. Single-tracked commuter rail service would be in place from downtown Fort Collins at University Avenue and Maple Street along the BNSF right-of-way to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor end-of-line station at 1st Street and Terry Street in Longmont. New commuter rail passing tracks would be added adjacent to the existing freight rail tracks in four separate locations (totaling approximately 28 percent of the corridor) and both sets of tracks would be used by commuter rail and freight rail. A maintenance road would also be constructed adjacent to the rail tracks as necessary. This maintenance road is required throughout the BNSF corridor between Ft. Collins and Longmont where there is currently no access such as a public road. A new single track line would be built from the 3rd Street in Longmont (connecting to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor and to the commuter rail to Fort Collins)to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. The commuter rail service would run every 30 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods when demand is highest and every hour in the off-peak periods. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station where it would continue on to DUS; a transfer would not be necessary. To reach Boulder, northern Colorado riders would transfer to the FasTracks Northwest Rail corridor line at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont, which would use the new rail segment extending from the proposed Northwest Rail Corridor end-of-line station at 1st and Terry Streets to connect to the Sugar Mill Station. A commuter rail maintenance facility is proposed at CR 46 and US 287 in Berthoud. Nine station locations are planned for commuter rail. They are detailed in Section 2.2.4.5 of this Final EIS. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-17 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 5-5 Preferred Alternative 25 LEGEND • Tolled Express Lanes Reconstruct mainline P ' Express Bus Transit Station Wallin to correct geometric General Purpose Lanes 'i Commuter Bus Transit Station Q deficiencies and uunnnnui Express Bus replace aging p Commuter Rail Transit Station ♦mom"vista infrastructure Commuter Bus * Carpool Lots CR1 • 4 Commuter Rail N Commuter Rail Operational • m Atdt & Maintenance Facility •---•-•-•- Passing Track Fort • 6/2 • Commuter Bus Operational Coll nett }�! Feeder Bus Service & Maintenance Facility i W CR3 oe „•r, •, �.I Eaton Q Interchange Reconstruction - FasTracks Rail Line © SOVINI •••• b epa Number of Lanes: O FasTracks / RTD Transit Station ti.ro.... VTf►' General Purpose/ O Tolled Express — Iwkraa • Lov ', - nd k4ii'.' e"d EB7 E88 A61 CR4 • E: 16/2 El l T • ° „• `" 34 a "' • Greele • 'CB CR5 ipg TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS ai.I Darden City M!4� Commuter Rail Express Bus LARIMER �ii� 0 CR50 a Evan • CB3 CR1 Fort Collins Downtown EB1 South Fort Collins Transit - •°i•t'""' L. Sall* 60 Transit Center - BNSF Center - US 287 and Maple St. Harmony Rd. ' . all �• EB9 Milliken CR2 CSU - BNSF between 1 EB2 Timberline - Harmony Rd. ' - ••• _ 0 c University Ave. and W. and Timberline St EB3 East Fort Collins - 1-25 and CR3 South Fort Collins Transit Harmony Rd. 6/2 Center - US 287 and EB4 Windsor - 1-25 and SH 392 36 ♦= R 3a WEL L D Harmony Rd. CR4 North Loveland BNSF • EB5 Crossroads - Loveland 7 M• rlett.au 29th St. between Crossroads Blvd. �- 66 • • CB4 0 and US 34 CR7 CR5 Downtown Loveland - • Longmont • BNSF and approximately ` EB6 West Greeley - US 34 and • 6th St SH257 • CR8 -ila ,, +EB1U CR6 Berthoud - BNSF and EB7 Greeley - US 34 and 83rd `36.) `85 SH56 Ave. BOULDER Longmont BNSF EB8 Greeley Downtown Transfer C I Photon• CR7 North L Center - 8th Ave. and rletc and SH 66 8th St CR8 Longmont Sugar Mill. EB9 Berthoud - 1-25 and SH 56 ® • 1 : S.. • CB5 • south of Rogers Rd. EB12 CR9 Erie I.25 and CR 8 EB10 Biel 1 t one - 1-25 and C" �••_ •.,,• Oft lel FasTracks Rail Static = oulder a 6/2 Downtown Denver EB11 Fredenck/Dacono 125 (1r I 19 I C and SH 52 EB 12 Erie -1-25 and CR 8 �• — — - - — Commuter Bus EB13 Broomfield 1-25 and SH 7 9, ' O ' 7 • CBl 36 Loolevl• �� _ Sri o DIA Northwest ,we ,• 4• • L ' ; S 4 CB2 i Greeley - 8th Ave . Rail Corridor sun `• - Right-of-Way th St r : • e r _e ' •nt•n Preservation CB3 :•ans • US 85 and 42nd St. - - -- - Apr •r t COT CB4 :ttevilte • US 85 and G or +a • Ave. • No 72 E470 Denver CBS Fort Lupton - US 85 and North Metro International CR 14.5 % 6/2 Corridor Airport Brighton - •'g 1tS85andSH7 . ® S� r Commerce City - 72nd and luuull l� Colorado �;, / — r Vii. -I L- - I. /W .• JEFFERS 70FN iTOIS • Derrve all . • F ,p / 6 ■ ■1 l en er 70 �..Mr.a. , North I• v: 25 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-18 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The Preferred Alternative also includes a commuter bus service along US 85 connecting Greeley to DUS. This service would operate every 30 minutes in the AM and PM peak hours and every hour during the off-peak periods. Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at signalized intersections, would be included to help achieve reliable speeds for bus service. A maintenance facility is proposed in conjunction with the commuter bus service to be located at 31st Street and 1st Avenue in Greeley. In addition, five commuter bus stations are proposed. Four feeder bus routes are proposed to enable riders to access the commuter rail and the commuter bus via local bus service. Express bus services would operate from Fort Collins and Greeley to DUS, utilizing the TELs along 1-25. The service from Fort Collins would begin at the Fort Collins South Transit Center, and operate along Harmony Road in mixed traffic until accessing 1-25 at its interchange with Harmony Road. In addition, express bus service would operate from Fort Collins to DIA. During peak hours, buses would depart every 20 minutes with two going to DUS and one going to DIA. During off-peak hours, buses would depart every 30 minutes: one to DUS and one to DIA. Service from Greeley would begin at the 8th Street and 8th Avenue Transit Center in downtown Greeley, and include stops along US 34, in mixed traffic. The bus would operate in shared general-purpose lanes along with mixed traffic along US 34. Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at signalized intersections, would be included to help achieve reliable speeds for bus services. Two maintenance facilities are being evaluated in conjunction with the bus service, as well as 12 express bus stations. Many potential congestion management measures are included as enhancements to the • packages, including carpool and vanpools, supportive land use policies, signal coordination, incident management, and increased use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 5.3 PROJECT PROCESS AND IDENTIFICATION OF SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES The Section 4(f) resources in the vicinity of the regional study area include publicly owned parks and recreation areas, including recreation trails, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and significant historic sites. First, parks and recreation areas, recreation trails, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites were identified within the regional study area. The recreational uses of the public parks and recreation areas were then evaluated to determine if they are considered to be properties protected under Section 4(f). Management plans and agencies were consulted to evaluate if the waterfowl and wildlife refuges were actively managed as refuges. Historic sites were identified through an intensive level of cultural resources survey and evaluated for significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). NRHP-listed or eligible historic sites qualify for protection under Section 4(f).NRHP-listed or eligible archaeological sites that warrant preservation in place also qualify for Section 4(f) protection. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5.3.1 Consultation and Coordination Consultation for purposes of this Section 4(f) evaluation has been initiated and is expected to continue through the final design and engineering phase. The consultation and coordination efforts that have occurred thus far are described below. Public involvement and community outreach for the project as a whole is documented in Chapter 9 Comments and Coordination. Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Stakeholders Consultation Consultation and coordination has occurred with jurisdictions in which public parks, recreation areas, and the wildlife and waterfowl refuge are considered significant resources by Section 4(f) criteria. Site mapping, amenities, and activities of the resource associated with affected properties were verified. Meetings were held to describe the project, the alternatives analysis, and the nature and severity of impacts to affected resources. Coordination consisted of numerous meetings and correspondence. The officials with jurisdiction include: ► City and County of Denver ► City and County of Boulder ► Town of Berthoud ► City of Westminster ► City of Fort Collins ► Larimer County ► City of Longmont ► Wellington ► City of Loveland ► Colorado Division of Wildlife ► City of Northglenn (now the Division of Parks and • ► City of Thornton Wildlife) ► Colorado State Parks After impacts associated with each of the packages were determined, consultation continued with the jurisdictions for which Section 4(f) resources could be potentially affected by the build alternatives. The potential de minimis findings, possible measures to minimize harm, and general mitigation strategies were discussed with a commitment to explore these strategies in more detail after identification of the Preferred Alternative. Coordination meetings have been held with Fort Collins, Northglenn, Loveland and Boulder County. Coordination will continue to occur throughout the EIS process. Appendix D contains letters from all jurisdictions concurring with the proposed de minimis findings. 5.3.2 Identification of Section 4(f) Resources Historic Resources In accordance with the FHWA/FTA regulations, Section 4(f) requirements are applicable only to significant historic resources (i.e., those sites listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, or sites otherwise determined significant by the FHWA Administrator (23 CFR Section 774.17) and the FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper [3. Historic sites, Section 4(f) Significance])that are subject to use by the transportation project. The historic resources considered in this evaluation include all resources that were listed on the NRHP or determined officially eligible for listing on the NRHP. Only those Section 4(f)-protected resources that are determined to have a use by the proposed transportation improvements are discussed in this chapter. There • are additional Section 4(f)-eligible historic resources located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), which would not have a Section 4(f) use. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.20 Final EIS Nownh I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. All of the significant historic resources within the APE, whether impacted or not, are described in Section 3.15 Historic Preservation of this Final EIS. For purposes of this Section 4(f) evaluation, only properties subject to use by the project are detailed and documented. Table 5-1 lists resource specifics, including location and type of resource, and the reason each property is considered a Section 4(f) resource. Figure 5-6 shows the location of these resources. There are five direct uses of historic properties and 26 de minimis uses. Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Areas Data on parks and recreation sites was gathered from municipalities in the regional study area by requesting data on properties, including parks and recreation areas, open space and trails, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database was created using this information and verified with the use of relevant comprehensive plans, parks and recreation master plans, open space management plans, and calls to the relevant jurisdictions. The current and planned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas were identified within the regional study area. The complete list of all public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas identified within 500 feet of any corridor proposed for improvements is provided in Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation. For purposes of this Section 4(f) evaluation, only Section 4(f) resources having a Section 4(f) use by any of the build packages are discussed (see Table 5-2 and Figure 5-7). The initial evaluation of parks and recreation areas, public trails, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges identified all resources within 100 feet of a proposed improvement. The corridor • development and evaluation process identified these properties as protected resources to be avoided, which resulted in approximately 30 park and recreation resources being avoided by the build alternatives. One park would have a direct use and ten park and recreation properties and wildlife and waterfowl refuges would have de minimis use as a result of the build alternative transportation improvements. Two properties identified as impacted in the Parks and Recreation section were determined to not qualify for Section 4(f) protection. The Larimer County Fairgrounds do not qualify because it is not open to the public during normal operating hours. Boulder Creek Estates was determined to be a joint planning opportunity between the City of Longmont and CDOT. This area does not currently have any recreation amenities and design of the commuter rail line and recreation development will be coordinated between the agencies. A letter from the City of Longmont to CDOT agreeing to joint planning is in Appendix D. Only one wildlife refuge property met certain criteria and has been studied as part of this Section 4(f) evaluation. The criteria include the following: ► Have full public ownership or public easement. ► Have a management plan and are actively managed as a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. ► There is a use of the land. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.21 C 0 ci O • a C. c U U U U U co o 5 w O O O O O Q to . v .4 0 L L L >Y .E L w N - d 0 m y . aim m a, I � 8- y C C C L a C C ri-i 0 O a, 0 O ti .A a a) a) aa> o a m ci O _ a O 4' ' E 0 o e). h N ,O 0. -0) rn rn a) .g) .En a z c �• CO 0 •0 .0 co C _0 N u) U7 N V v - r pN) N V C en O co 7 V a o o 0o N 7 o o O 0. O. v0i U C 'C a 0. 0. rn 00. u) L0 '--I 0 -0 E _N N y UU, U)li • N U) en .0 C I6 a) yL C C C C C C 0 0 a (0 m 0 a) a) 0 LO 0 a) a) a) 0 w m'� CU .� 0-C o) E E o,E,-c O ai 0 EE E U O) 0 0)O I V) O lcD .C C6 0 fn in fn U) 8O C (n C co C (n U) re am U _f. a Q a Qa) u) OUa co 0Q Oa < - a z cL 0 CO 0 0 o 0u) C a c c < cc a c c c d . y 0 CO O O CU OO CO 0 0 0 0 -C r •m `-�' a) a)` 0 ,- `- C .0 'C 'C 'C 'C -C -C (� 0 (� LL (C_�a 'c U�C C 00 0 C -C -C 'C -C -C -O 'C •C O -C y = U CD U a, a, U co o U0 U y U O U O O O p U 0 .L-. 0 Ce 0 )' 0 2 a) E a) cg) 5 `)L.. O a) N E a) 0 5 V a) a) N W_ a) C O C C C .c Cap Con C 0 C'L O C V C O 'Cl C C O C C C L C O Y a) O 0 0 7 0 7 co 7 C >, 3 7 7 U) 7 7 7 0 7 7 7 d 7 _ _N L 0 a- 0 i 0 0—" a) 0 0 .- 0 0 0 a- 0 0 0._ 0 47)la d C Q a rz N L N C f,O QCla L d L a , - ,O ,0 .0 y L _5Cf G) N 5)? 5 C Ol C 5 0 5- p) C) 5 -5 a) •5) .6) 60 0 _a .Q) O)0 a W TD W J W v) W _ W _ W _ W O ) W W W-≤ W W W = W W W W C O CA 3 H 17.3 0 03) ci W N • (� Qj r r N r rr O) (') o coO M M N N O CV u7 CV NI' Q y 0) r N CO U) 00 C) 0 a sCC � � a s < a a s < cu Ul (Oi o zz U) U) U) (0 La Lc) zzIn z zIn zzLc) Z Cu CU U C L L L .C L L L a U .0 U -+_U- .0 U p 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ��( wa. O ›. O O _O O _O ccccc -O C C _ _ (6 z+ O O . H rnhi 3 m CO m CO CO E E 2 2 E CO m rn rn co rn 0) ft U 0) � E rn c - LL Cr - = . LL LL d' LCI L LL . LL LL = LL 6,44 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U .►-�y O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 O O O O D O O "-Li 0_ IA in N y N U) 4) V) (/) U) 4) (/) it) N (/) V) (q i = i 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 z z = i 2 2 2 z C, . a H T a1 C 5 a O0 .�. T C m a) E -ro LL a 0 (n c E T. � � L L m e L coc CIJ O 7 lL COg > o c C7 .C 'D C 0 0 �✓ o o a a DO O c6 v) (n m E p j E a E e- LL to.) ac) � d f Sao `a) c C o � � CI) o 20 o er EL CD m CO o O r aa) 13) Z v aoi w E E o c`6 3 E m -c - C LL ar c C U 7 a a U U) O 7 > C ( L a) = > 0 d) 7 C co O (ON a)_ C 0000 a) 0 O 0 00 as v O N d1 6) = O y (6= y W N G J 0 LL 0(.000 U m J J O LL (n M (7 z N W 2 z 2 m 2 0 O y 3 C 7 a, U) LL Q ti) .O co m 0 0 N N co C) CO 7 (OD M CO CO CV N O`— v V CO N N co o co O v co Z 0) .- M r coO 0 O) .- U) Ln � .-- O) - N U) et N CO U) CO r 00 U) co I() M U) rl 0 z cC z ti ce ii 2 J J ri z ii Ci J J J (A U) U) U) U) U) LJn U I.0 II) ) U)CO—I J U) U) LaU) U) In La • a (a 0 O co • 0 _ n "' W m m C O C c w In V �+ m m 0 m .C _ m O O itr) g tn O y O7 O O . i-�-1t 0� C o m m D H 4 f° co � a' N c m o rn .O' w E N NLi . L 0. a m m U m m O l' J O O 0 .c fa a t = c a r c L y c p) a 0. C . E -.e •� -ov w o) a) m C C C rn 01 CO (3.)L m a) m m N U W Uo 0) c C) E U 0 U = c ^ 0a U) N co m 0) in m t_ c c co m c re < m a < < Q Q Q 7p m m < a f° Q Q Z c < •D) 0 C c% c '''. co co C 0 < < c Q C Q cc O t0 _ a0 o m O N O ` O U O = a) a) o co o i9 O O C cp `' c v 'C 'c 'c •C i 'c v v m v v -c 0 m m z m_" CD N o-. O CD O N cp N N N N CD CD CD 'C 'C .C r_ U "C 'C 'i N 'c t!) r L •L 'C C a_ 'C C 0 0 U C U U U 2 U 2 U 2 U U U U U U 0 U v Jo tL m m O} m tom m N O m za 4) U m m O Oa) m m m 'v v a> V, v v v m v m v O 6 v v v v v v v v c c acn c c c CCCC C cc c c c c c c c cc ,- m 7 s2 7 7 7_ 7_ 7 in 77 7 7 7 7 7 7 m m N y i m' m m m U m U CD L m m m m m m m m L L 0. E 7O Q N Q L L 8 T 8 L 4) G 2] .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 !ID 0) v)m of m Q1 v7 N .v)y 0_)'+• O) v) v) v) 2 vl vI W ill 11 N 2 W ,. W W W L W t W 0 W W W W W W W W C O R 3 • N is y el o0 N N CCOO. N N Qj ui co `�u7 C 41 G ^ N O CO c7 N N ^ ,- CO CO Nt 0 < d O) (005 u') I's n ,- CO CO LO LO cam) ' r) M O 1 . N J J J . ce- J J J J J }J J J � .U Q J J a CO CO m CO Q < > < < < > > COco in to to to U) to an Z cn in to to Z Z to Z Z Z to to to to CU ..r I.CU U U .LU-. y U _U _U a _U C O 0 0 ❑ m 0 D ❑ m 0 a, .2 O o ow O O O ' O f6 L s1 � c co v c c co O 3 o £ E 0 0 . co co � A o) 0) 0) rn CO Ca rn rn rn c L . )"'4 . . 11ix . Q' 11 W Q' .i.' U U U U U 0 0 0 U 0 0 U U U U U CA — ni O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O My V) N ) U) co Cl)1 Cl) N V) Cl) Cl) CO tq in 0) 0 i I I 1111 t ± I I Z 11111 r iv-i a) .U-• L U t+iS ❑ U C 4 c c v •C cA 17 cco E F3_ CS O > >, a p L cn a 0 2 2 x ❑ m oZS cO ��. 0 l� E c cvo c u C co , y '- C 2 0 = ❑ °5 L 0, v ' `. ❑ o >. Li 0 a a_a.a> r L >, >• L c CO m m �' ' N C m fC m m L 0 m U 0 ~ c m c � o a) U5 O a rn o c c.o c (I) N Ci 7 7 co 7 O- v 'J O O m 0 O co y n m m C f0 O W N C lY m❑ m MY CO a 0 O Om () coo mU cn I D DYDamm +7 + d(13 = C 0U 0 el LL Q EE O^i l] m O M a) CO N LO ' c0 _N CO co CO N (O q r_ co c, c, N N M O • CU • J LL J r2 Q' LL J J J J J J J J J J J J LL 11) > CO l5. U l) _i CO CO CO LO m m m ln lfl l LO Ill LL7 m It [ I r 0 tf 0. O W J C 0 T d°� a co 9 C CD N • L da C `-- C CO •G O ..d, a t/1 re cS d c O .. tFF > N .GC) co iO 2 .N Nco d l 0 m `o .. ow acv a L. Z dw J d p co foa � 0O dJ d w yc vdi 'a Cr m c p N w c C f0 a > > m N Co o d c ^«¢ N N ---i v Uoa ovi d, 3 .o d - aL oa d o Uo I I S acv >,m o U 3 - o c c .G o o H W o c a O N L d A N 3 y C co N C - E a U g (a J . c >`c �_ r O c IL0 ~ aQS 2 CO •no d J 9 C L LL H IC a 'C S] - d 2 a d m d ._ 3 a> La a d C a d •d a •i d.` Foi E CJ d o co N N O O> N O - C ` J V O G d .� N O 0 lo d dam Ip .T. v iQ'1 V O co ≤ 't a O a o t d Cl o ., C ar m d0ZE $a mm � :o d ! O 0 -o c � w co T bo ION0 op OI Oi d ¢ y 3 N L _ co a L d d G co o 9 d d L oa3m co Cmaano3 c ¢ ° CO ccLa oI a `u y.� d � v_ � c'o Eoao u � : >,4-0 � i- d '= oE • - O T d U N fO CO r — O d N d <V co -.- CO a 4N CO '.>-. �. C d '„, H 1' mmm2 33E3nc £ 3 K � aU am 12 025 m .5 mpp C! Y a Pt Co_ a co a E C cdt CC b o a o d t 0 U r d oI U w 3 CO m > c r 't O3 LL a.04 J -J Li- 0 � U •H a > C a O a A O O � U U o D A F U U U C ott c_c d N a c at CO d L C — CO J y C Y .� C Lj O. w U D J D d N U O O 71 N 'n n U W • 6 a ca O'U d Qi 3 d d CO U O d N d�0 .. U a N -N r - N > C a a > N L V= a N C d U a V �Or� d 3 N o C a' N l0 O) d a J J d U- N d O « L d (0 tO O o �+ 0 it r O d K OJ C C N a - U U - -g- N 3 L a d ra C J N m¢ a O)y O) ry y N E E N CO UOi @ d y F O co O CJ r d :: ° O C U C N E O 2 � a d V N V d m a a N d o To W y E Joo � m acm C = JNDVO a—dUymm Jcoidcm N Q 2 co a co _ 2 .a> F F d N : a : za N 11] , 2 c0 ca N c cci x CO CO re N N ry N d co U N U N O o CO @ V N V OC co d U co a coon W :� N � 'o m v c'o O Ato 5 P—I co Cr) I CM O 03 CA _ v 0 CU cc' O CO O O S r -Co r 7 Vi c N c 2 a N Oc N d g N C NIX c O a N O N N N N NO - >'E. U mC la — - � ge . d o O O O N O1 O C J C ' O N 0 'II '-O` v E � E rN U o ; > `- NU w ." O > N O co O N a d >d0� O > (n li W N O Q J > 2 LL J c . ¢ IO > J 0 7 A. 1 V rn c C 7 aJ C = LL Q Li) a C o o Y d d o o o c co a o d m oC E 'o. IO" Q oD c d 0 2f0' Cl D L m o co d L U c j o ¢ C) 0 N a U d • L N w F N a« F c a d ry L> d in L To CJ d d a r .] U a C C VJ. co co co A K ¢ Z mad LiE 2N Ince ¢ z IC F 76a. a � c./) \ Wesi o-4 \ = = — = @ § 2 0 2 Co I- I- e / ■ B 2 = , ■ 0 k O CC o 20 - § o § § 0 k g Co ■ E ■ ■ ■ t a.I- CC IX IX re k a = '6 2 c o v. vo 2 f = E » ' o o c / _k � � u, / - kv � * EE t % § » 2O ^ o � O <e § 0 c o CE = k • 01 = w � C \ g� o $ Co & C ui to § k k k k < e e e e x J / 2 I 0 » E e & � 7 c / 0 N O 2 ^ Lo c') O 2 C c a § ■ @ OA ° | a � «2 a t.c 7 � -O≥ 2 § @ CO - Q.2 § /�% � { { 2 oic -k / \ Z )/ E} \ �/ k7O oWc k 41 . � - ±� c � cf \k / \ -o • c; �� 2 03 § _ C" , a 2B- e - 1>s cc-..=. >Eac = lo r., 0 c - 00 & 006 .? E2 e o TV � § @ § E� f$/} } a °'� 2.t § E E CO N 5 yo .; : m � 2 >_ � = / E ato2 ® - � « � � = � § g22O (J)o I mzSe 2 al & _ C = � c % ii: « ! / � f% k 0 G ) 2 K 7k 88I- ± k q el 0 � / 5 � � \ � / � 2 \ k • 1 o E d /\ ko2\ i\i o 2a. m @ Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-6 Section 4(f) Historic Properties , LEGEND il ~ Study Corridors • ti /\/ Highways ,�.--- — /�/ Arterial Roads .• N. Wellington �••� `85 L. 1 Regional Study Area � �'��City Boundaries <11\; •�/ +•f'.ro Cities & Towns in Project Area '\ Fort Gnllcis SECTION 4(F) HISTORIC PROPERTIES ! °9\,` - ;4.1 \, ---/ Al 5LR.89321. a 5LR.11396 I 257 III5LR.2160.1 r rnarh Q Severance .1.-t)r ., r it ® 5LR.89301 I t11, ® 5LR.11210 287 in5LR.8928.1 I I ; i-t svirdxi Luc n I. ® 5LR.503.2 t. 1 Gr,-_ ® 5LR.850 1 I ! ® 5LR.11209 I - 5LR.11408 34 .- • S R..' 5LR.11382 la \ � =.'.,�t +, I - 34 . In 5LR.8927.1 •� .a ._ I 1i4 5LR.11242 _ la:-a 15! SWL.5203 F34 .uv�?uw tb 1$ so /1 18 5WL.841 11 ! 85 i' •-�" a AM1l+ikan . 5WL.5198 . I - 56 I SWL.841 -9 1 .' 5WL.1974.1 r-- / III . 5W...1966.11 ' . 56F.1301 I 35J _ /% IN5WL.1317.11 y / II5WL.1969.41 66 •-1---, ., • - - - - I U. pp 58F.130.1 I ' - ont I 0 5WL.1966.8 20 5M .1317.11 L9 Lr • 271 5w1.1966 1 /' . . 1 Volans v 28' 5AM.457.2 / rw• O Fiesta-vs I 29 5LR.8930.2 / t vot J 0';record 1 ../7' 30 SLR.850.5 %/( - 1 MI 5LR.503,4 j' i , L' Psi tuna+ it -,(j- — tar�tw+o • .4 5LR.8928.7 5LR.488 a h +:,v . i ..1 ye - :4 5LR.1710.1 5BL.3449.2 r I --- 98i, 5BL.3113.67 A''' "Y,�, _\~ I . 7 ifj 58L.4832.28 ' / Rota) . . Iii 5BL.9163 ti' L4 56L.1245 ms's h• .,,- , E26 .� 36 V: r.:;lcr r %' 4�4 SWL.1974.3 I _ __C 4wr' 5WL.6564 7 4* 5WL.5461.1 I \• / 47 5VVL.5263 `�•- fsy •• - �_ Denver-7a...ASS _�`" Taitt's...„.N't _ i 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 / `! .\\/ I ' Miles North - --' / : 1 )\ . IIli Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. Figure 5-7 Section 4(f) Park, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Resources LEGEND _ -- � ! Al Alternative Corridors r` � hh /�/ Highways !1 I 1 \ /N/ Arterial Roads � !� 1;_; Regional Study Area i did City Boundaries i .�.i Lr- a Cities & Towns - Fort Collins \ . S 14 Fitil 1 • r 1 lrnrw4•. 1 m i yes axe i:.;21-ik . 1 , . fr___ i. 1 Lucerne . 392 1 1 34 - 1 i = 34 _ I \ I 60 / i t ul a railing, 85 .1 i __. 6 4 / ' tj I / III ...:. . ,_ ..,. ici -4 .. / . • I I ' . l . r/'''' 6 i I- 1 F , N„tirn 0 !Merck 1 ^, uro Fat I u r,Y } 52 . .- c - - -- t O i 0 Valmar , A . 0 i J Wenh ; !/ Boulder 7 + �� I I - - lwc:vd:.' .;'� . - �i,- rq,'el( 4-lag O N. ) _. iF ... f, 8; 36 '� I f '�• • 287 i0 /' , Arapahoe Bend Natural Area `, / •` } �' <2 Archery Range Natural Area ) r. !. / i Big Thompson State Wildlife Area ,� --- (4- Little Thompson River Geil er ill �� c5;McWhinney Sculpture Park ` 4Sandstone Ranch . ;/ 7. RR Alignment Trail rill 1. 120th Street Underpass 0 2 4 6 8 10 ® t C4' Farmers Highline Canal Trail 0 limilli-__—_; •= il Miles North 2 10 Coronado Pkwy Trail Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • In order to ascertain the primary purpose of the properties, applicable management plans and jurisdictions have been consulted. Only the one property that met the above-mentioned requirements has been determined a Section 4(f)wildlife and waterfowl resource. One wildlife and waterfowl refuge would be used by all alternatives (see Figure 5-7). 5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Resources 5.4.1 Introduction Chapter 2 Alternatives, details the alternatives under consideration. The alternatives evaluated in this document are combinations of improvements that satisfy the Purpose and Need for the project. All of the build alternatives (Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative) would use portions of Section 4(f) resources. The effects from the alternatives are described with each Section 4(f) resource category. 5.4.2 Approach/Methodology This section describes how the proposed project results in a use of Section 4(f) resources. For each of the resources, an overview of Section 4(f) uses is provided, followed by a description of avoidance alternatives, measures to minimize harm, and mitigation measures that have been considered. In the instances where de minimis applies, the process did not require the identification of avoidance alternatives. Evaluation of any feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid use of the Section 4(f) resource • The discussion of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives for each resource specifically addresses potential avoidance alternatives for that particular resource. Section 5.2.2 discusses corridor-wide alternatives that were evaluated in an attempt to identify alternatives that would entirely avoid all identified Section 4(f) resources. The corridor-wide alternatives were eliminated primarily because they did not meet the Purpose and Need of the project. These alternatives would also likely have resulted in the use of Section 4(f) resources not identified in this document. In the following sections, feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives are evaluated based on the definition provided in 23 CFR 774.17 (see Section 5.1). Identification of measures to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources When a Section 4(f) resource is used, all planning to minimize harm, including development of mitigation measures, must be undertaken in coordination with the officials having jurisdiction over the resource. In instances where there are no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives, a least harm analysis was completed for each Section 4(f) resource by alternative. The results of the analysis are detailed in this chapter for each identified resource. 5.4.3 Temporary Occupancy of Trails As stated earlier, temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) resources may result in a Section 4(f) use. However, under FHWA regulations [23 § 774.13(d)], temporary occupancies of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f) are excepted from the requirement of Section 4(f) approvals when the following conditions are satisfied: • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Information. cooperation. transportation ► The occupancy must be of temporary duration (i.e., shorter than the period of construction) and not involve a change in ownership of the property; ► The scope of work must be minor, with only minimal changes to the protected resource; ► There are no permanent adverse physical effects to the protected resource, and there will be no temporary or permanent interference with activities or purpose of the resource; ► The property being used must be fully restored to a condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the proposed project; and ► There must be documented agreement of the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the foregoing requirements. Five trails identified as Section 4(f) resources were determined to meet these criteria and therefore are not considered Section 4(f) uses. These include the following: ► Big Dry Creek Trail —The existing underpass that carries the trail beneath 1-25 will be reconstructed to accommodate the wider highway profile under both Package B and the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to the trail include extension of the underpass by approximately 80 feet and temporary closure of this segment of the trail during construction of the bridge. A detour is available that would make use of Huron St. and either 136th Avenue or 128th Avenue depending on whether the user is connecting to the Big Dry Creek Trail or the Farmers Highline Canal Trail. ► Big Thompson River Corridor Trail — Under Package A, a temporary closure of the trail • would be required for construction of a new bridge accommodating a parallel track that would carry the commuter rail over the existing trail. The only effect to the trail would be temporary closure during construction with a reasonable detour provided that would make use of 1st Street and South Railroad Ave. ► Box Elder Creek Trail —This proposed trail currently has no potential crossing opportunities for 1-25. As part of the highway improvements a culvert is being constructed at this location. If the trail is constructed prior to highway improvements proposed under Package B and the Preferred Alternative there is a possibility that short term closures would be required. The nearest opportunity for a highway crossing is located approximately one mile south at CR 58. ► Fossil Creek Drive Trail —This is a proposed trail that would pass under the existing rail line at the Red-tail Grove Natural Area. Under Package A, a parallel rail line would be constructed requiring a new bridge over Fossil Creek at this location. If the trail is constructed prior to rail improvements proposed under Package A there is a possibility that short term closures would be required. The nearest crossing is located one mile north at Harmony Road. ► Spring Creek Trail —This trail currently passes under the existing rail line at Creekside Park in Ft. Collins. Construction of the new parallel rail track proposed under Package A would require a new bridge structure at this location. Impacts to the trail would include the extension of the existing underpass and temporary closure during construction of the underpass. A detour would provided that would cross the rail line on Prospect Road a quarter-mile north of the existing trail underpass. • Each of these five trails meets the requirements for temporary occupancy as described above. Letters requesting concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the resources have been sent and are included along with the official's responses in Appendix D. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • 5.4.4 Use of Historic Properties The uses of the significant historic Section 4(f) resources sorted by component are shown in Table 5-3. There was no use of Section 4(f) resources resulting from transportation improvements included in other Package A and B components. Additionally, the table lists the type of Section 4(f) use of each resource. Properties with a use and no adverse effect determination in consultation with SHPO have been evaluated as de minimis findings in Section 5.5. These properties are addressed in Section 5.5 De Minimis Impacts. This project would result in a use and a full Section 4(f) evaluation for six historic properties. Indirect effects to Section 4(f) resources were evaluated based on the current activities, features, or attributes of the resource that may be sensitive to proximity impacts. None of the indirect effects identified for the following resources rose to a level where the protected activities, qualities, or features would be substantially impaired. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Table 5-3 Use of Section 4(f) Historic Resources ID Section 4(f) Use Number Resource Package A Package B Preferred Alternative A-H2 General- B-H2 1-25 Improvements Purpose Lanes: Tolled Express SH 14 to SH 60 Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.8930 Louden Ditch 316 linear feet of open 357 linear feet of 1,084 linear feet of ditch ditch placed inside new open ditch placed (5LR.8930.1:788 feet& (90 feet)and extended inside new(87 5LR.8930.2:296 feet)used existing(225 feet) feet)and through being placed inside culverts extended(270 new and extended existing feet)culverts culverts or being capped or moved A-T2 No Use Commuter Rail Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 5BL.1245 Old City Electric 0.85 acre and No Use No Use Building demolition of property 5BL.1244 Colorado and 0.51 acre and No Use No Use Southern/BNSF demolition of property Depot 5WL.5263 Hingley Farm 7.34 acres of property; No Use 7.40 acres of property • incorporation of 2,585 incorporated into transportation feet by 125-foot strips infrastructure and demolition of of farmland into project the farmhouse and demolition of the farmhouse 5WL.6564 Jillson Farm 7.34 acres of property No Use 7.34 acres of property incorporated into incorporated into transportation transportation infrastructure infrastructure 5WL.1969, Denver Pacific/ 2.9-mile abandoned No Use 2.9-mile abandoned segment 5BF.130 Kansas Pacific/ segment modernized modernized for single-track Union Pacific for double-track commuter rail operations; Railroad, Denver commuter rail demolition of 2 historic bridges &Boulder Valley operations;demolition Branch of 2 historic bridges • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.31 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Louden Ditch (5LR.8930) Description Location: T6N/R68W, NV Sec. 27; T6N/R69W, SW1/4 Sec. 26 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Louden Ditch by Alternative Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 Total 316 feet of open ditch placed inside Total 357 feet of open ditch placed inside new(90 feet) and extended existing (225 new (87 feet) and extended existing (270 feet) culverts. feet) culverts. Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements and Commuter Rail: Total 1,084 linear feet of ditch used between segment 5LR.8930.1 (788 feet) and segment 5LR.8930.2 (296 feet). Ditch will be placed inside new and extended existing culvert with other portions being • capped or moved . Resource Description The ditch was originally built in 1871. The entire ditch is approximately 23.25 miles long. Two segments of the historic Louden Ditch are located in proximity of Package A and B transportation improvements. Segment SLR.8930.1 crosses I-25 and the existing frontage road at Larimer County Road 30(LCR 30) East. The excavated earthen ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under I-25 and the frontage road was altered when I-25 was constructed in the 1960s and the ditch was placed inside a concrete box culvert. The documented segment(SLR.8930.1) is 3,316 feet long. Heavy riparian growth exists along the northwest banks of the ditch. The remainder of the ditch has been dredged within the project area and no vegetation is present along the ditch levee. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination The entire Louden Ditch (5LR.8930) is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Both segments have experienced modifications near the highway and railway, but much of the ditch remains in its original alignment. Both segments (5LR.8930.1 and 5LR.8930.2) were found to retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.32 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Information cooperation. transportation. Section 4(f) Use Package A Only segment 5LR.8930.1 of the Louden Ditch experiences a direct use as a result of Package A transportation improvements. This segment is presently conveyed beneath I-25 inside a box culvert measuring approximately 260 feet long. At this location, Package A involves re-alignment of the I-25 northbound and southbound lanes approximately 90 feet to the east of existing highway and widening each direction from two lanes to three lanes. The new corridor footprint would include relocating the east frontage road farther east of the current alignment. To provide adequate space for the re-aligned northbound lanes and east frontage road, an additional 225 feet of open ditch would be enclosed inside a box culvert underneath the new roadways. The new culvert would be extended from the end of the existing box culvert located on the east flank of the existing east frontage road. LCR 30 on the west side of I-25 would be rebuilt along the same alignment, although the template would be widened slightly to the north. The west frontage road would be abandoned south of the interchange. A new road (Byrd Road) would run south from LCR 30 and is functionally intended to replace the west frontage road. At this location, the historic ditch follows a parallel course close to the south edge of existing LCR 30. A 91-foot-long segment of open ditch would be enclosed inside a new box culvert to pass beneath the new Byrd Drive connection to LCR 30. Construction of the new culverts would likely require temporary occupancy of the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would possibly be temporarily diverted during construction, but would remain operational. Ditch waters would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. • The direct use of 316 feet of open ditch, or less than one percent of the total ditch length, being placed into a new box culvert extension on the east side of 1-25, and a short culvert beneath Byrd Drive, do not affect its historic alignment or function. The physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing it in culverts. Although these changes affect a relatively small portion of the overall linear resource, they would result in an adverse effect to the entire Louden Ditch. See Figure 5-8 for uses associated with Package A. Package B The uses of the Louden Ditch under Package B are similar to those described for Package A, although an additional 45 feet of open ditch for a total use of 270 feet on the east side of 1-25 would be placed in a box culvert extension due to the wider 1-25 template. There would also be a new culvert enclosing 87 feet of open ditch beneath the proposed Byrd Drive. Package B would directly use 357 feet,or less than 1 percent of open ditch, as opposed to 316 feet of open ditch under Package A. The direct uses resulting from Package B are similar in nature but slightly greater than those resulting from Package A and would result in an adverse effect to the entire Louden Ditch. See Figure 5-9 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative, Segment 5LR.8930.1 of the Louden Ditch would experience a direct use similar to Packages A and B except that the portions adjacent to East LCR 30 east of Byrd Drive would also experience toe-of-slope impacts that would require capping or moving the ditch an additional 524 linear feet. Only 173 feet of open ditch would be enclosed inside the extended box culvert underneath the new northbound lanes and east frontage road, less than under the other Packages. The new culvert beneath the proposed Byrd Drive would be 91 feet for a total of 1,084 linear feet of use to this segment. Segment 5LR.8930.2 would also experience direct uses of 296 feet to accommodate the maintenance road required to parallel the Commuter Rail line under the Preferred Alternative. See Figures 5-10 and 5-11 for uses associated with the Preferred Altemative. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Avoidance Alternatives Packages A. B and the Preferred Alternative Avoidance alternatives for Louden Ditch were examined and it was determined that no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives existed for the following reasons. Avoiding use of Louden Ditch at the Byrd Road intersection with East LCR 30 would require raising the grade of the intersection by several feet in order to bridge the ditch at this location. The grade of the roads to accommodate this solution would be raised several feet creating an elongated impact to the existing and planned roadways. This would result in additional physical and noise intrusion at 14 to 25 residence locations north of Byrd Road, which is an identified community of Environmental Justice concern. Therefore this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it results in severe disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority populations. Avoidance of Louden Ditch where it passes under I-25 is not possible because the ditch currently flows underneath and perpendicular to I-25 inside a concrete culvert structure. This pre-existing condition precludes avoidance of the resource because any change from the existing conditions would not represent a satisfactory change in historic setting or integrity. All Possible Planning To Minimize Harm Packages A.B and Preferred Alternative The proposed design includes a retaining wall along the east edge of the frontage road that was intended to limit impacts to a wetland area; this retaining wall also minimizes the length of ditch subject to direct uses. No other minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. Although the Preferred Alternative involves a greater expansion of highway infrastructure in this area, additional use of that segment of the ditch were avoided through a design alteration that involved widening the highway into the median as • opposed to outward from the existing highway. Mitigation Measures for Louden Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Operation of irrigation ditch maintained during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-8 Louden Ditch Package A Use 1! LEGEND . Historical Resources zr' • , , 11 Package A Resource Impact _Ali _ r, r t Package A ROW Boundary � ' '�,, ._ �` ;t ,l 1 5LR.8930 1 Property Boundary _ Package A EOP F. Bridge / Culvert % •� y Roadway Features �. Retaining Wall i. - f , aGuardrails IL., I i i '. t Parcel Boundaries `,� II � .. � , i. f ti 1 :1 . 4 ( 1 i..�, .' *-69.6..4---• J : \ : "�''- L Existing culvert i r I' `. qIIIIS1 f , ,itry, ,» ill ti �L_ .. " 1 • - }l. f • r . yit lit . ite:\ t J , il ; 0 1, , • al_ , Open ditch placed ' 1H o t inside new culvert: p • Nt. �\ I a • ->w AV ill El 91 linear feet impacted .•, �� I al bi . 1 . ( 1/4: .7„ r � �. Open ditch placed , c f '� `- 1 : yi• inside extended culvert: ='r` - rr, • 225 linear feet impacted t ! : • :I . '\ tt Ir I.• ilt ,r4 4•, /• Total impacts to ditch ' �� of 316 linear feet .� I Co 4 ) • i I ` Yt , f IAAit I I Location Map - Ir , 0 300 ll=l Feet North _ ---seIll Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5.35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIll Figure 5-9 Louden Ditch Package B Use L LEGEND 4Ig' J — _P,f I Historical Resources ; 4 ( i Package B Resource Impact � ) 4 ./ � i i `! 9 pact A. . , I : . • ► , Package B ROW Boundary • I ' 7 i 5LR 8930.1 Property Boundary +. , � t- I - _ Package B EOP ■•-0 Bridge / Culvert ` "— I r' - - . Roadway Features f� Retaining Vrtalll. ` � r 1 pro- real Parcel Boundaries `._J Guardrails '`' "r��" i „pr.r, _, - 1 Mali , c s__..., y _,, f- - 0 efir-___ 4 .. , iir-ii ik.cass:R- itzs, -i; upt.;. -4-, , 1 n ' 7. - SI . -• — t , Li , Iil.e J` Existing culvert I :: ..=--/-;*-;:r.,-- - -tWv-, g '• -�9 - - r t ! — - E1'CRRR�30� ��*� rtyiii.. .ill - ki Sit arsr III ba �. a ii I - ll ep I13 Iii 0 CO %I. - _.. . � ,, r fistiitiTh Open ditch placed inside new culvert; I �� `' v.. 87 linear feet impacted "" ; ,� � 91' _ . - - ,I : .'1 I a= �r C I1. , , , Open ditch placed inside extended culvert; 270 linear feet impacted I = / i4 1 — Total impacts to ditch i i of 357 linear feet r I`w �� II / I ocation Map • - \ I . ! 300 Immilm.i 1 Feet North I -- .f__13_1._ Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5.36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS all information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-10 Louden Ditch Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND _ _ _ - # 4 � ,,� I' , 1 Historical Resources Y p! ' 1y �' r s ` e {• 1 ; r II II T Preferred Alternative Resource impact ` 1 , II , .. Preferred kltemative ROW Boundary I 11,itit 1 ' !,5LR 8930 1 Resource Boundaryir-r-:76s t j 11 , I E�er►rd AMma1Ne a.. Budge' Culvert t et,. ilk* � Roadway Features in� Rsrainn) vim • ~ ...0 ' �� i e - — - Plum] 9ountlirles �� Gunrclre.le it Om-. Illtk r f rili�.�� _ f r a• �'+ • �� , Ail rr - 'i � Y 41 \ a . setieitc- - •tir -a in sse sz....- , „drivI in. 1_4.u...sea. , . . - - 0 Il i ..144„ii. r ..a .._ . .., ,,, ii lat! : ir- a .%: r *el Existing culvert w 1 1:07"-• \qt. iltilifil` . --tit ce - ANN-1/474.-ait i I -iv 4 . _ . 'Ilk at_ -Aar 0,6_ yam NA,TA0 Di. t- - - --- ELCR30 , - - - i - .. - Ds,' i� k Il :1I ; '• - k , 0 CD z Additional 521 Linear Feet Imputed ; j - o rl ti ' • . - - L5. . liii CO Open drtch pled ' I ' ) ' +R. - , nsIda re,�'c.,0030: Open ditC i Ore: • • w 91 l ntsx l cat Impacted inside minded culma. , it + 1T3 linear feet fmpeeted ,-- { ` . al— 1 ` - - l t--I - i- Ri: - i / Total impacts to ditch ' il i '5 / of 788 linear feet i \\\\ i --nr i \. - r e,,f ;. Location Map + r I n C 300 S p ii. s1 I t=ent North ..` IIINote: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation111 Figure 5-11 Louden Ditch Preferred Alternative Use . . , L LEGEND Histaracal Resources AiPreferred Atternatrve Resource Impac- I • Preferred Atternatrve Comm Rao ROW Boundary 51_R.8930.2 Resource Boundary QPreferred Atematrle Cairn Rail Fmlprrt Fel Cammatar Rau Damp Parry. Bajndanes Ilia Bru19, E' Gvf.,Nt I l .* x i 3 II!" - 3444. III • 4 Si Maintenance road centerline, 293 Linear Feet Impacted . h` 4'N 4 S • i 4.0 id VII • • ki ' C • t 7 ','", rti a 1 v `a 1 p Be• t, ;� iyl 4 4 4 4 i� Ni N.. =;r _i. "`' .sp II t -3/4-- \ 7 II Location Ma rrr '`-- i. 0 2C)0V V {_; i . ;N r ial I Feel North I awei �. Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-38 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) Description Location: 103 Main Street, Longmont Type: Historic building/local landmark Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Old City Electric Building by Alternative Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Fort Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Collins to DIA 0.85 acre/demolition of property No use Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: No use Resource Description The Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245)is located at 103 Main Street in Longmont. It is an excellent example of 1930s industrial architecture featuring large windows, an open plan, and solid brick construction. This building served the city's power needs from 1931 to 1969. Longmont was one of the first cities in Colorado to develop a municipally owned electric generation plant. • Eligibility Determination The Old City Electric Building is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the development of Longmont, and under Criterion C as an excellent, intact example of industrial architecture. This early power generation plant has also been designated as a Local Landmark by the City of Longmont. Section 4(f) Use Package A Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing commercial rail line on the north side of 1st Avenue in Longmont would require right-of-way acquisition and demolition of the entire 0.85-acre property, including a portion of the parcel containing this historic building. The building would need to be demolished or moved to a new location to accommodate the new rail line and associated construction activities. This direct use would result in the loss of integrity of this resource;therefore CDOTand FHWA have determined that Package A would result in an adverse effect under Section 106, and a use under Section 4(f). See Figure 5-12 for use associated with Package A. Packaae B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from the Preferred Alternative. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Avoidance Alternatives Package A In order to tie into the FasTracks design at the 1st Avenue and Terry Street location, the new track requires location on the west(or north)of the existing BNSF track. The narrow corridor where the existing track is located passes directly along the south side of the Old City Electric Building.A variety of alternatives were examined in an attempt to avoid use of this property under Package A. An avoidance alternative was considered that would terminate the commuter rail line at the Sugarmill Station and not connect to the FasTracks Northwest rail line, removing the possibility for potential riders to continue on to Boulder from the proposed northern commuter rail. This alternative would cause potential transit ridership to drop by approximately 6 percent. Therefore this is not considered feasible and prudent because it would compromise the project in light of the stated purpose and need to provide for modal alternatives. The location of the 1st Avenue and Terry Street Station in an urbanized area of Longmont, and the relatively short distance of two miles between it and the proposed Sugar Mill Station, allows for very few alternative corridor alignments for this segment. To avoid the historic property, the existing rail alignment would have to be realigned to the south side of 1st Avenue, encroaching on approximately 85 feet of property for approximately 2,000 linear feet. Construction of the railway at this location would require the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of approximately seven businesses. Businesses at this location are industrial in nature and include needs that require large lots, such as recreational vehicle and boat storage, automotive sales, and warehouse operations. Finding vacant property to accommodate these space intensive businesses nearby would be difficult. Relocation of these businesses to a new location outside the local district would jeopardize the businesses'sustainability. This alignment would also create two additional at-grade crossings, decreasing the overall level of safety for the motoring public within this heavily traveled area. Therefore, this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would • result in unacceptable safety problems, and severe economic impacts. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. Allowing the BNSF railway to remain in place and re-routing the new commuter rail alignment north of the Old City Electric Building would result in several impacts. The Butterball processing facility, located in the northeast quadrant of the 1st Street and Main Street intersection, would be removed. This is one of seven major processing facilities in the company and is Longmont's fifth largest employer,with 920 employees. Additionally, part of the electrical substation located at 1st Street and Coffman Street would be removed, causing the site to be reconfigured. This alignment would also generate an additional at-grade rail crossing on US 287/Main Street, 200 feet from the existing crossing, decreasing the overall level of safety. This alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would result in unacceptable safety problems and severe economic impacts. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. Package B and the Preferred Alternative These alternatives avoid the use of the Old City Electric Building. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Under Package A, a property acquisition would be necessary to accommodate the commuter rail track and alignment. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Mitigation Measures for Old City Electric Building • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Detailed recording of the building, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended. • All mitigation measures are pending SHPO concurrence. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-12 Old City Electric Building Package A Use 111 LEGEND 1 _ _ �, _ . . . Historical Resources �M b r ii IR va 7, Package A Resource Impact 1 2�a� lr - Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary p j. _ 1� _ �� . 5BL. 1245 Property Boundary P, 'I. �� r1Package A Comm Rail Footprint Z �• in. • -,_I 'Q s- — r I Commuter Rail Design t� ., ' r • m --0- 4 ` S Parcel Boundanes ;0 1. h • ..�i a JJ a � gap w I S lipii Ls 1 - lr! ! 1 ikimuiilikel 1 • . at wr _it • eat is ti . 1 - tabs ?"., . ..j. 2ND AV .. . .a ,A e *tit - r - ,. t.w.r 4. to, '6,'• i 7 415-s- 1 - .. . ... , , ��TT ! lcLa LI . Area = 37.055 Sq. Ft k '"+ ' r eril �� iii Acres =30713%55 ` c.Jr 40 ler C , - il . , 4 /*12) ��l 'AP — III a • • . t rr �� -- - . .4 • i 1 i t �� .. ..,•••__ 1ST AO . . 1:2 I il -rt • . i li 1 L t ..- -. P.°••• 1 _ 0, t, , t - /p 1 0,` I set' , . � ;. % 4 • ,r+ ftri. , , ... . A -1. .Ate Ira 4I ' , : . , . , , = . . > , s-� c „, . ,� Abu: 4 a... 4... aing -,k,... . „, .R f1�� 1 ` 4_, ,,, . , . , 1 .. ; . ,__ i it at , 'co— • In lip hl tame_ 4 it I, lit.• it . . ----,.. •. C. te+ .mire t.,. Of ILI el'N, / i , Location ligis `M ap B ASTON--�AV a - - h rI i��. . P �' 1 •R • •r , • , •t I. Fa t 't�'111 i 0 300 QI �� l Feet 1; . a ,la I II North �� -► �' 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-42 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244) Description Location: 100 Main Street, Longmont Type: Historic building Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot by Alternative Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to North Metro Corridor End-of- Fort Collins to DIA Line Station 0.51 acre/demolition of property No use Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: No use • Resource Description The historic Colorado&Southern/BNSF Depot(SBL.1244)is located at 100 Main Street in Longmont. The depot was built in 1905. It is one of the two early railroad depots in Longmont and is one of the finest small masonry depots in the state. The depot is the only existing Richardsonian Romanesque style building in Longmont. Eligibility Determination This depot(5BL.1244)is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its association with railroad transportation and its contribution to the development of Longmont. The building is also NRHP-eligible under Criterion C as an excellent and well preserved example of masonry railroad depot architecture in Colorado. Section 4(f) Use Package A Construction of a new commuter railroad line alongside the existing commercial rail line on the north side of 1st Avenue in Longmont would require right-of-way acquisition and demolition of the entire 0.51-acre property, including the area occupied by this historic building. The building would need to be demolished or moved to a new location to accommodate the new commuter rail tracks and associated construction activities. This direct use would result in the loss of integrity of this resource;therefore, CDOT and FHWA have determined that Package A would result in an adverse effect under Section 106, and a use under Section 4(f). See Figure 5-13 for use associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative • There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from the Preferred Alternative. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Avoidance Alternatives Package A In order to tie into the FasTracks design at the 1st Avenue and Terry Street location, the new track requires location on the west(or north)of the existing BNSF track. The narrow corridor where the existing track is located passes directly along the south side of the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot. A variety of alternatives were examined in an attempt to avoid use of this property under Package A. An avoidance alternative was considered that would terminate the commuter rail line at the Sugarmill Station and not connect to the FasTracks Northwest rail line, removing the possibility for potential riders to continue on to Boulder from the proposed northern commuter rail. This alternative would cause potential transit ridership to drop by approximately 6 percent. Therefore this is not considered feasible and prudent because it would compromise the project in light of the stated purpose and need to provide for modal alternatives. The location of the 1st Avenue and Terry Street Station in an urbanized area of Longmont, and the relatively short distance of two miles between it and the proposed Sugar Mill Station, allows for very few alternative corridor alignments for this segment.To avoid the historic property,the existing rail alignment would have to be realigned to the south side of 1st Avenue, encroaching on approximately 85 feet of property for approximately 2,000 linear feet. Construction of the railway at this location would require the acquisition, demolition, and relocation of approximately seven businesses. Businesses at this location are industrial in nature and include needs that require large lots, such as recreational vehicle and boat storage, automotive sales, and warehouse operations. Finding vacant property to accommodate these space intensive businesses nearby would be difficult. Relocation of these businesses to a new location outside the local district would jeopardize the businesses'sustainability. This alignment would also create two additional at-grade crossings, decreasing the overall level of safety for the motoring public within this heavily traveled area. Therefore, this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would • result in unacceptable safety problems, and severe economic impacts. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. Allowing the BNSF railway to remain in place and re-routing the new commuter rail alignment north of the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot would result in several impacts. The Butterball processing facility, located in the northeast quadrant of the 1st Street and Main Street intersection, would be removed. This is one of seven major processing facilities in the company and is Longmont's fifth largest employer, with 920 employees. Additionally, part of the electrical substation located at 1st Street and Coffman Street would be removed, causing the site to be reconfigured. This alignment would also generate an additional at-grade rail crossing on US 287/Main Street,200 feet from the existing crossing, decreasing the overall level of safety. This altemative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would result in unacceptable safety problems and severe economic impacts. Cumulatively, these factors would cause impacts of an extraordinary magnitude, making the avoidance alternative not feasible and prudent. Package B and the Preferred Alternative These alternatives avoid the use of the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Under Package A, relocation of the historic structure to another site would minimize the destructive nature of the use. No other minimization measures would reduce the Section 4(f)use. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-44 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Mitigation Measures for the Colorado &Southern/BNSF Depot • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Detailed recording of the building, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended. • All mitigation measures are pending SHPO concurrence. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-13 Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot Package A Use _ 'rt: ..- , �,. . gimp 411r, Pr LEGEND t Historical Resources + 'Iel % 71 Package A Resource Impact , taiga I Ii ` le ' ,'f Sr. Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary ' r ` ' , i • • 5BL 1244 Property Boundary {_ i jPackage A Comm Rail Footprint • I Ii SI Commuter Rail Design Ft i rnI Parcel Boundaries i in Ir i„. ! I Inall .••• di. ,,, Mill i - ve.PIPP IIIILS. kr. , Pal . 1 "' _, ilr t 2ND AV �, . t T ' 1 i I ri -- ir � S 1 9iew, Fi .„ 4, , It , al k [/M ...w • a- I IOW -4-t-naii 3/41 . � • 4 . i� iter A . - S ' •—• ir . . , 4 litDIP ill E , _ .. • ______,..._ _ I . ____ _..... - t 1ST AV """'�`e s._Ir � r , u1t:: 11_ ,41 , I I I � ' +- I i as , , :. . (,:i ehr AK' i is" .. of ii• , till ..** Area = 22,151 Sq. H "-'t I `a '- _ �..,`$ 1*.4;. _ , , - .K - Lill rei Acres = 0.51 l lw i (.4 1: ass ! V-,. �� • — I .. i I 1 i r . .. . , ' e i girevreid •, • 1 'I +a jetH_Z -; ,1 i• __� • I "*-mom--..-- �►t _to I Sim I t 1' CE- � _ 1t i r; .- i a yre�. i i6 F = '' ,f t..BOSTON AV • . r'1 . �r i „`• s t; Location Map ' "Ii 1 1 le * • ....‘ _`* mkt- r .I rr�r. I I a � )R «••. •., ' ' , , r` 0 300 - ,+. r''"_ '_ i trill I Feet • (' North 4 it k_ - . _ - • a .� _.C 4 .. ter .' kW1 ID Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-46 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Hingley Farm (5WL.5263) Description Location: 7523 Weld County Road 7, Erie Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Hingley Farm by Alternative Package A A-T2 Transit Component- Package B Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 7.34 acres; incorporation of 2,585 feet by 125 feet strip of farmland into project and No use demolition of the farmhouse Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: • 7.40 acres; incorporation of 2,585 feet by 125 feet strip of farmland into project and demolition of the farmhouse Resource Description The farmstead is located at 7523 Weld County Road (CR)7 in Erie. This farm is a very intact example of a historic agricultural operation in Weld County. Built in 1900, the hipped roof farmhouse is an intact example of the Classic Cottage domestic architectural style in a rural context. Eligibility Determination This farmstead is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County, and under Criterion C for its significance as an intact early farmhouse and farmstead. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-47 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Section 4(f) Use Package A Proposed development of a new commuter rail alignment within a 125-foot-wide right-of-way corridor parallel to CR 7 would cause direct use of this historic farm. A strip of land within the historic property, measuring 2,585 feet long and 125 feet wide, would be acquired and converted from agricultural to transportation use. The area to be acquired comprises 7.34 acres. An entirely new transportation feature would be introduced into the rural, agricultural setting. The majority of this affected land is currently utilized as cultivated fields. The proposed rail corridor would pass through the original farmstead complex at the southeast comer of the property, and would require removal of the contributing, architecturally significant farmhouse.The property, if the farmhouse were either rebuilt or replaced elsewhere on the property, could still serve its present agricultural function, albeit in diminished capacity due to the loss of arable land. These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource;therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that an adverse effect under Section 106 would result. Figure 5-14 depicts the uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative Proposed development of a new commuter rail alignment including passing track, parallel to CR 7 would cause direct use of this historic farm.A strip of land within the historic property, would be acquired and converted from agricultural to transportation use. The area to be acquired comprises 7.4 acres.An entirely new transportation feature would be introduced into the rural, agricultural setting. • The majority of this affected land is currently utilized as cultivated fields. The proposed rail corridor would pass through the original farmstead complex at the southeast corner of the property, and would require removal of the contributing, architecturally significant farmhouse. The property, if the farmhouse were either rebuilt or replaced elsewhere on the property, could still serve its present agricultural function, albeit in diminished capacity due to the loss of arable land (see Figure 5-15). • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-48 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Avoidance Alternatives Package A and the Preferred Alternative Avoidance Alternatives for the Hingley Farm were explored in detail, and it was determined that it could only be avoided if the commuter rail alignment were placed on the east side of CR 7 in this area. If this alignment were used,there would be severe environmental impacts, including impacts to approximately 21 acres of prairie dog towns, and 18 more acres of habitat than a western alignment. There would also be an increase in impacts to wetlands of 0.25 acres, for a total of 0.36 acres of impacts, some of which are higher quality wetlands than those found on the western alignment. The western alignment would also avoid impacts to ponds. Additionally,there would be an increase in social impacts, increased disruption to established communities, and increased impacts to minority populations. These include impacts to 66 properties and 55 structures, 18 more properties and 22 more structures than are impacted with the western alignment. Twenty-two of these properties are located in areas identified as minority, resulting in 16 relocations. To shift the alignment only for the length of the Hingley Farm property would require two crossing structures over CR 7, at an approximate cost of$5 million ($2.5 million per structure). Therefore, due to severe environmental impacts, including increased impacts to wetlands that are a federally protected resource, disruption to established communities and severe impacts to minority populations, it was decided that avoidance of the Hingley Farm by rerouting the alignment to the eastern side of CR 7 is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. Package B Package B would avoid use of Hingley Farm. • All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The location of the rail line to the west side of CR 7 makes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of the use of the farm not feasible and prudent because it would require either the crossing of CR 7 twice or the re-alignment of the road, and result in greater impacts to environmental resources as noted above. This solution would increase the cost of the project in addition to affecting properties on the east side of CR 7. Mitigation Measures for Hingley Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Detailed recording of the building in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended. • All mitigation measures are pending SHPO concurrence. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-49 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. all Figure 5-14 Hingley Farm Package A Use _ — LEGEND - . ' Historical Resources t _ Package A Resource Impact r • ` . r 4 _ Package A::::: 0w ary - Package A Comm Rail Footprint -WCR 18 Commuter Rail Design • - 4' aParcel Boundaries �_ ®� •', ---- - �i 'eat,' - - ". ' r ! .. . { • E. a. Ili' _2 . 1f . 1117116; •I di r , - . Area = 319,587 Sq. Ft - i Acres = 7.34 .... . /"' - - ' -.-_ .2. ,... , ..It. III _...N. F \. - - ! r � r III - ti r a_ , .._ \ . + r F "' 1 r 1 4 :. r 1 , , . 'y--"---�•' r-. �' I ILI r ' ell - „ ' { 3• % - a . 00111 c ll 7 1 -- '' Demolition of �':ip "' I '''' • farmhouse w° f ;r. . U „*. Nip. A4 -4 ill - Location Map I--- . ,. > . _ _ ei ft .0 400 . .7\ _ ,� __ �� _ t I Feet t ^ A�. I II z . I North r ,. . * ',k I r - Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-50 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • _ information cooperation. transportation. Figure 5 15 Hingley Farm Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND I - " iiiiifro R I N. Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact 4 t=r` Preferred Alternative Comm Rail '` � 'rt 4 :. ;ri ROW Boundary 7 ;; i. 5WL.5263 Property Boundary '.- . lc' ' • - •f ee• _�. WC-II- 18 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint L Commuter Rail Designrktsv i i,�` Parcel Boundaries O./ Bridge Guardrails Th � � - - — 71 t t C I rt.,-, _ . __. ,. . _ . , . !• Area = 322,585 Sq. Ft Acres = 7.4 .. 11111 7, ,,, „...1-.:_ _...), ... .. . i�, t. _ . . . . • 11 ll..' I ; I; , �•y� l (71 •�, f: ' of ji. . I, »` . ' , I O ! Demolition of rz c r • ... farmhouse i O j - r ' - , - -. Li. \. Ayf L. • k.- f•/. - ocationa. . --. `Map.,, I__.._' rihiii 0 400 FN ',C., it wR u 1 Feet /\ ;1;4•7 : • Er I i ia I North r!1 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-51 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Jillson Farm (5WL.5263) Description Location: 2877 WCR 18, Longmont Type: Historic farm 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Jillson Farm by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 7.34 acres incorporated into No use transportation infrastructure Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: 7.34 acres incorporated into transportation • infrastructure Resource Description The farm is significant as an important example of one of the northern Colorado farms from the late 19th century. It played an important role in the agricultural development and settlement of the region. The farm remains in the Jillson family after more than 120 years of continuous production. The house on the property is also architecturally significant as an excellent intact example of the Craftsman style with a wide, recessed porch, tapered supports and bracketed eaves. Eligibility Determination In the summer of 2010,the Jillson Farm was field assessed as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A for its importance in the agricultural development and settlement of the region for more than 120 years. It was also assessed as eligible under Criterion C as a good intact example of a Craftsman style house. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.52 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Section 4(f) Use Package A The Jillson farm includes 153 acres on the west side of WCR 7 and 80 acres on the east side.The use associated with Package A would occur along the western edge of WCR 7.A strip of 7.34 acres adjacent to the roadway would be needed for construction of the rail alignment.This strip of land goes roughly through the center of the farm which is currently bisected by the roadway. This part of the farm is currently used as pasture for the Jillson herd of about 70 cattle.The farm buildings would not be directly affected by this project as they are located approximately 500 feet west of WCR7 Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative Use of the Jillson Farm as a result of the Preferred Alternative would be identical to those described under Package A. Figure 5.16 depicts the uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. Avoidance Alternatives Package A and the Preferred Alternative Avoidance Alternatives for the Jillson Farm were explored in detail, and it was determined that it could only be avoided if the commuter rail alignment were placed on the east side of CR 7 in this area. If this alignment were used,there would be severe environmental impacts, including impacts to approximately 21 acres of prairie dog towns, 18 more acres of habitat than a western alignment. There would also be an increase in impacts to wetlands of 0.25 acre, for a total of 0.36 acre of impacts, some of which are higher quality • wetlands than those found on the western alignment. The western alignment would also avoid impacts to ponds. Additionally,there would be an increase in social impacts, increased disruption to established communities, and increased impacts to minority populations.These include impacts to 66 properties and 55 structures, 18 more properties and 22 more structures than are impacted with the western alignment. Twenty-two of these properties are located in areas identified as minority, resulting in 16 relocations. To shift the alignment only for the length of the Jillson Farm property would require two crossing structures over CR 7, at an approximate cost of$5 million ($2.5 million per structure). Therefore,due to severe environmental impacts, including increased impacts to wetlands that are a federally protected resource, disruption to established communities and severe impacts to minority populations, it was decided that avoidance of the Jillson Farm by rerouting the alignment to the eastern side of CR 7 is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. Package B Package B would avoid use of Jillson Farm. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The location of the rail line to the west side of CR 7 makes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of the use of the farm not feasible and prudent because it would require either the crossing of CR 7 twice or the re-alignment of the road, and result in greater impacts to environmental resources as noted above.This solution would increase the cost of the project in addition to affecting properties on the east side of CR 7. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.53 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Mitigation Measures for Jillson Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • Detailed recording of the building in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended. • All mitigation measures are pending SHPO concurrence. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-54 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-16 Jillson Farm Package A and Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND � -- it � _ - rt. Historical Resources • :1,, Preferred Alternative Resource Impact -4 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary '• 5WL.6564 Property Boundary . • Q Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint Er Commuter Rail Design - Area = 319,825 Sq. Ft. . Acres = 7.34 Parcel Boundaries M ■ Bridge Guardrails a_. , , Apr IF I*, C . . g 0 _ Sr c 1 ilk - .- _ - 1 / .N --erg-ifs i � } . 4F ____b 1 -.L li iii --El( ;IF \I ji f ji • Localiurl Map - / l l/,\ . . ,r 0 500 ;��\ Ll 1 Feet North - . • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-55 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969, 5BF.130) Description Location: T1N/R68W, NW'/.Sec 24 Type: Historic railroad Section 106 Effect Finding: Adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of UPRR-Denver& Boulder Valley Branch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA 2.9-mile abandoned segment modernized for double-track commuter rail operations; demolition No use of two historic bridges Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: Demolition of two historic • bridges. Resource Description This linear historic resource is the abandoned Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch(UPD&BVB)that ran a distance of 26 miles from Boulder to Brighton. The rail line was originally built in 1870. Two segments of this rail line in Weld County enter the project APE, including 2,310-foot-long (0.44-mile)segment 5WL.1969.41, and 11,620-foot-long (2.2-mile)segment 5WL.1969.1, both of which follow the original alignment. Both segments are in a deteriorated state. One 2,083-foot-long (0.39-mile)segment of the same rail line in Broomfield County is designated 5BF.130.1, and includes a contributing wooden trestle bridge that carries the rails over Little Dry Creek. Segment 5WL.1969.1 runs east-west 2,000 feet north of CR 8. The segment is 2.2-mile-long part of abandoned UPD&BVB between Boulder and Brighton. Construction started in 1870. Rails and ties have been removed near 1-25 and parts have been paved over by county roads. This abandoned portion of the railroad includes a wooden trestle bridge located east of CR 7 and west of 1-25. The railroad bridge crossing 1-25 was removed soon after 1999. Eligibility Determination The OAHP has officially determined that the UPD&BVB is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado. Segments 5WL.1969.41 and 5BF.130.1 retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5WL.1969.1 does not retain enough integrity to support the eligibility of the entire resource. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.56 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Section 4(f) Use Package A The proposed new commuter rail would utilize the existing track alignment and add a parallel track alignment following the historic UPD&BVB in this area before joining the Dent Branch (5WL.1317.11)and turning southward.Where the new commuter rail line would cross onto the Dent Branch,there would be direct use of as much as 260 feet of track by the replacement of existing"through rail"with switching tracks and associated apparatus (see Figure 5-17).The existing historic bed, ballast, and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway(segments 5WL.1969.1. 5WL.1969.41, and 5BF.130.1)would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Where the abandoned railroad crosses 1-25,the commuter rail would require a new 470-foot-long bridge spanning 1-25. The original railroad bridge was demolished during a previous 1-25 highway widening project.A new bridge crossing would not be expected to negatively affect the historic selling beyond its already diminished integrity at this location (see Figure 5-18). Additionally, the new double-track rail alignments would require a new supporting structure over an unnamed drainage at the historic wooden timber and log footer bridge (5WL.1969.1 Feature 1).This 47-foot-long by 17-foot-wide historic bridge would be demolished to allow for construction of a new railroad bridge measuring approximately 60 feet-long and 70 feet-wide (see Figure 5-18). The installation of the double-track configuration for the commuter rail would also require a new supporting structure over Little Dry Creek. The existing 69 foot long by 27 foot wide,wooden trestle bridge(5BF.130.1 Feature 1)would be demolished and a new bridge measuring approximately 75 feet long and 70 feet wide would be constructed at that site.Although new rail would be placed upon existing bed, ballast, and grade, and a new track placed adjacent to the historic alignment, this is a compatible effect with the historic use • and setting of the historic railroad line, and would be expected to preserve an otherwise deteriorating resource(see Figure 5-19). A continuous 2.9 miles of the entire linear resource would be re-occupied with new track on the existing bed, grade, and ballast, and an additional new track located 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new but compatible rail infrastructure elements to the historic setting. Demolition of two historic bridge features along the Boulder Valley Branch would result in a use of the resource. These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource; therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that an adverse effect under Section 106 would result to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line (5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Package 8 This segment originally bridged 1-25, but the structure has been removed. Because Package B improvements occur at ground level within the span of the original bridge, there would be no use of the railroad segment by improvements associated with Package B. No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locality. FHWA CDOT therefore have determined that the improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic UPD&BVB(5WL.1969 and SBF.130). Preferred Alternative The proposed new commuter rail would utilize the existing track alignment following the historic UPD&BVB in this area before joining the Dent Branch (5WL.1317.11)way and turning southward.The existing historic bed, ballast, and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway(segments 5WL.1969.1. 5WL.1969.41, and 5BF.130.1)would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. Where the abandoned railroad crosses 1-25, the commuter rail would require a new 470-foot-long bridge spanning 1-25. The original railroad bridge was demolished during a previous 1-25 highway widening • project.A new bridge crossing would not be expected to negatively affect the historic setting beyond its already diminished integrity at this location (see Figure 5-18). Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-57 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Additionally, the new single-track rail alignment would require a new supporting structure over an unnamed drainage at the historic wooden timber and log footer bridge (5WL.1969.1 Feature 1). This 47-foot-long by 17-foot-wide historic bridge would be demolished to allow for construction of a new railroad bridge measuring approximately 60-feet-long and 70-feet-wide (see Figure 5-18).The installation of the single-track configuration for the commuter rail would also require a new supporting structure over Little Dry Creek. The existing 69-foot-long by 27-foot-wide, wooden trestle bridge (5BF.130.1 Feature 1)would be demolished and a new bridge measuring approximately 75 feet long and 70 feet wide would be constructed at that site.Although new rail would be placed upon existing bed, ballast, and grade, and a new track placed adjacent to the historic alignment, this is a compatible effect with the historic use and setting of the historic railroad line, and would be expected to preserve an otherwise deteriorating resource (see Figure 5-19). A continuous 2.9 miles of the entire linear resource would be re-occupied with new track on the existing bed, grade, and ballast, and an additional new track located 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new but compatible rail infrastructure elements to the historic setting. Demolition of two historic bridge features along the Boulder Valley Branch would result in use of the resource. These direct and indirect effects would result in the major reduction or loss of integrity of this resource; therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that an adverse effect under Section 106 would result to the historic Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/UPD&BVB railroad line(5WL.1969 and 5BF.130). Avoidance Alternatives Package A and Preferred Alternative A variety of avoidance alternatives were considered under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Shifting the alignment of the commuter rail tracks off the historic railway alignment would require substantial acquisition of non-transportation corridor land from private and public ownership along a • 3.03-mile distance.There are no vacant, adjacent, or parallel linear corridors onto which the rail could be relocated. Environmental impacts include impacts to prairie dog colonies, and an additional 0.3 acre of high quality wetlands, which are a Federally protected resource. Social impacts include impacts to three residential properties, which would require relocation. Economic impacts would include those resulting from approximately 36 acres of farm and ranch land impacted by the realignment of the rail tracks. This farm and ranch land is located in an area that contains Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, increasing farmland impacts if the alternative alignment were used. These measures would also result in use of other Section 4(f) resources including an additional 70 linear feet of impacts to each of the historic and Section 4(f)protected Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966)and Community Ditch (5WL.2247). Bull Canal/Standley Ditch is currently eligible for listing on the NRHP because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado and as an important example of irrigation engineering. The Community Ditch is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Impacts to the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch are currently de minimis under Section 4(f). There are currently no permanent impacts expected to Community Ditch. Impacts to these two resources as a result of avoidance of the single resource of the UPD&BVB, which has been recorded as being in a deteriorated state, would have the potential to increase the impacts to these two resources to adverse levels. Therefore, this alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative for the following reasons: • After reasonable mitigation it still causes: o Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts. o Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes. • It involves multiple factors that cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of an extraordinary • magnitude. • It does not provide avoidance of Section 4(f) resources. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-58 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Package B This alternative would avoid the use of the Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The physical railway template for a new double-track rail configuration has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)and FTA design and safety standards. This minimizes the dimensions of new bridges and culverts. Re-utilization of abandoned historic track, bed, and ballast helps to preserve the historic rail alignment. Also, the commuter rail analysis indicates that use of this rail alignment allows for tie-in to the Dent Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad,which is the most cost effective manner to terminate at the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line station. Mitigation Measures for UPD&BVB • Detailed recording of the affected railway, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Continued consultation with SHPO is recommended prior to final design to implement possible revised design elements to facilitate historic preservation. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-59 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation, transportation. Ill Figure 5-17 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch — Package A Use i 1 LEGEND 4 Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5WL 1969 41 Property Boundary Package A Comm Rail Footprint r 14Commuter Rail Design r Parcel Boundaries — Bridge / Cuh'e:l • lr:4 Il ..a. .lhb 771't.. .,4,_,,, ..---.- .711 . +may • -N. NN 260 Linear Feet Impacted 0 L4 4 \Id \ . \ L 1____ii y , 40 rya H 1� . .,_ _ • — / r_ t i ,. I L .. „„_ _ L ei f z 1 }y c Li , • Location Map L r � [ wi; s- u 200 /7\ - i ;' Lai I Feet North - - 1 • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-60 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Figure information. cooperation. transportation. 5-18 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific./Union road Denver & Boulder �pion Pacific Rail Valley Branch — Package A and Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact r Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary i 5WL.1969.1 Property Boundaries JPackage A Comm Rail/Highway Footprint Commuter Rail/Highway Design AParcel Boundanes M.. Bridge / Culvert Bridge would extend from original , . abutment of removed RR bridge.....J . . I i #14 , New 470-toot-long . ' bridge spanning 125 A ,_ NB V� S Bj V fi \,, 7 ,t a ,...... flt III i_i North - L_ I c. \ . 7t / \ 1. - I..- '3` _ New 60-toot by 70-toot wide bridge to i • I. accornodate new commuter rail tracks . 1 f 1.- l • .1 l= / / G tr 1 1 i i Existing 47-foot by 17-toot wooden bridge would be demolished / r • Location Map \1 200 Iir I Feet North 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-61 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-19 Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver & Boulder Valley Branch — Package A and Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND ' Historical Resources .• le- Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 5BF.130.1 Property Boundary Package AComm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries ..f Bridge /Culvert -l-0,.. BoG� ch New Bridge approximately 75 feet by 70 feet - •‘, . • III. , „„ ../ ._..„..NN1 ~n,, ,.. - N, , N.4 _1/4.,, r-•r. . /:.- - . P' .., ! =r 1 r i .i '"'t. ,‘ - , l ! / Existing 69 foot by 27 foot wooden = / trestle bridge would be demolished 1 , 't - r Location Map %• }• ' _ � a : I- r . " f • 0 100 rVIJ ' / �•. r 11,- '1 ,y •{•At' i Feet North • ' 11111 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5.62 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 5.4.5 Use of Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Resources Table 5-4 summarizes the proposed use of the individual parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuge Section 4(f) resources in the regional study area. Table 5-4 Use of Parks,Recreation Areas,Wildlife and Waterfowl Section 4(f) Resources ID Resource Section 4(f) Use Number Package A Package B Preferred Alternative A-H2 8-112 1-25 Highway GP Highway Tolled Express Improvements Improvements: Lanes:SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5 McWhinney A total of 1.21 acres of A total of 1.21 acres of A total of 1.21 acres of Hahn Sculpture park used for park used for park used for Park placement of new placement of new placement of new ramps ramps ramps McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park (Map ID Number 7) • Description Location: West of 1-25, north of US 34, Loveland Size: 4.5 acres Type: Park Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Visitor's center, sculpture park, houses the Chamber of Commerce, restrooms, gateway to the City branding the City as an"Art City,"drinking fountain, public telephone. Usage/Patronage: 3,200/year Relationship to Other Resources: One of 27 developed parks in Loveland; Loveland Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center is located adjacent to the park. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Loveland Significance: As a Community Park, McWhinney Hahn serves the community of Loveland as a whole by providing a special use area for art exhibition and serving as"gateway"to the City. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community,the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.63 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Use of McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park by Package A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 1.21 acres(approximately 875- A total of 1.21 acres(approximately foot by 60-foot strip of land)of park used 875-foot by 60-foot strip of land)of for placement of new ramps; includes park used for placement of new impacts to sculptures,trails, and access. ramps; includes impacts to sculptures,trails, and access. Serves Serves as"gateway"to the city. as "gateway"to the city. Preferred Alternative SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 1.21 acres (approximately 875- foot by 60-foot strip of land)of park used for placement of new ramps; includes impacts to sculptures, trails, and access. Serves as "gateway"to the city. Resource Description This public park is included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan prepared by the City of Loveland, 2001. The park includes an artificial pond,trail, and picnic tables. A special use is provided to display art • and sculptures in a public setting. The Chamber of CommerceNisitor Center building and parking lot are included in the park's total acreage. The City has placed the art and sculpture in the park so that they are visible to motorists to signify a"gateway"to the city and promote visitation to the Visitors Center. The park also provides visitors with a direct view of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Section 4(f) Use Package A Use at this location would result from reconfiguration of the US 34 interchange from a fully directional cloverleaf to a three-quarter directional interchange.The northbound off-ramp from I-25 to westbound US 34 would affect the southernmost portion of the park, resulting in the use of 1.21 acres. The interchange ramps adjacent to the park would be elevated 20 feet to 30 feet on retaining walls. The US 34/1-25 northbound-to-westbound interchange ramp and new grade-separated interchange at US 34 and Rocky Mountain Avenue would directly use land from this Section 4(f) property. The land used at this property includes sculpture exhibit area and the trail around the man-made pond. Access to the park is from Foxtrail Drive, which is likely to be closed because of the proximity to the US 34/Rocky Mountain Avenue interchange ramps. The City describes the property as serving as a"gateway"to the city and was planned to be oriented to the Front Range with views of the mountains. A park planning goal was to place art in highly visible locations and the identified use would decrease that visibility.The use would be of such magnitude that the function of the park would be largely lost. See Figure 5-20 for park use. Package B Uses of the Section 4(f)resource or park at this location would be the same as those associated with Package A resulting in 1.21 acres directly incorporated into the project. Preferred Alternative Uses of the Section 4(f)resource or park at this location would be the same as those associated with • Package A resulting in 1.21 acres directly incorporated into the project. See Figure 5-21 for park use. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.64 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Avoidance Alternatives Package A. B. and Preferred Alternative A direct interchange at the crossing of US 34 and I-25, two major regional transportation facilities, is necessary for each facility to function in a manner that meets purpose and need.Avoidance of this use could occur if this interchange was closed and no connection was provided. This is not considered feasible and prudent because it would not meet the purpose and need factor of improving accessibility. The McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park could be avoided if the regional interchange facility could be moved further to the north or to the south of its existing location. Moving the facility 500 feet to the north to avoid using the McWhinney-Hahn Sculpture Park would substantially increase the total impacts throughout the development in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. Approximately 50 retail and restaurant establishments, many as part of the newly constructed Centerra Marketplace, would be demolished, as would three office buildings,three hotels, and the Loveland Chamber of Commerce. This shopping center is designed to have immediate access to 1-25; prices at the Marketplace are dependent on the easy access of goods to and from the Marketplace from I-25.Additionally there are a number of restaurants that offer"fast-food service," making them appealing to those utilizing the Marketplace primarily for shopping. The"fast-food" restaurants are also appealing for those traveling through the region on I-25 seeking a convenient meal. Demolishing 50 buildings in the newly constructed Centerra development would result in a severe loss of property tax revenue to the City of Loveland. Relocation of the large number of resources with the same access to 1-25 and proximity to each other would cause a unique problem. Additional affected resources include the Medical Center of the Rockies, high-functioning wetlands, riparian areas harboring high quality habitat, and the two NRHP-eligible features—the Loveland and Greeley Canal and the Farmers Ditch. The Loveland and Greeley Canal is NRHP eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to agricultural development in the Loveland Area.The segment near the • interchange retains integrity, and avoiding the park would impact approximately 180 linear feet of this historic canal. Farmers Ditch is NHRP eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Moving the facility to the north would impact approximately 2,800 linear feet of the ditch. Avoidance of use of the park by moving the facility to the north would still require new on-ramps to be built as part of the existing interchange to accommodate future traffic volumes at this location. These proposed on-ramps would be elevated 30 feet higher than the existing highway on-ramps. This change to vertical profile, while not causing direct use to the park, would substantially affect the values that provide the basis for the function of the park as a"gateway"to the City. The addition of the walls would impede the views of the park users to the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains and would impede the views from passing motorists to the park showcasing the art. Both of these views constitute attributes that serve the primary function of the park as a "gateway"to the city, thus the function of the park would be largely lost. In a meeting held August 2007 with the City of Loveland (the agency with jurisdiction), the City cited both the views of the mountains and the view to the sculptures as the reason for locating the Visitors Center there and touting it as the"gateway"to the City. The City expressed concern that the proposed walls would impair the view to the Visitors Center as well, and the new interchange would move people quickly through the area making them less likely to stop at the Visitors Center.The City asked for additional meetings to discuss the possibility of moving the Sculpture Park and Visitors Center in their entirety to a location that would function more as a "gateway." Mitigating the land lost by replacing it with adjacent land in the same location would not effectively address the uses of the park. Cumulatively,the severe and unique impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, two eligible ditches and 50 buildings make moving the interchange (and US 34) to the north not feasible and prudent. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-65 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation • Moving the facility to the south to avoid the sculpture garden would create additional use at the Section 4(f)-protected Schmer Farm. This historic farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with early agriculture and under Criterion C for containing excellent examples of agricultural architecture. The property is one of the last remaining intact examples of a Larimer County Farm from the turn of the century.A field trip was conducted in the North 1-25 corridor in June 2006 with the SHPO's office and CDOT historian for the purpose of assessing historic properties in the study area. The Schmer Farm was one of the properties assessed. It was found that the Schmer Farm maintains a very high level of integrity because the land area of the farm has remained essentially unchanged since 1916, and the farmhouse and outbuildings exhibit very little alteration. Within two months of that field visit, the SHPO recommended that the property be officially assessed as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Moving the interchange at this location to the south to avoid the park would create an additional 3.7 acres of use, and require demolition of the farmhouse and associated outbuildings. The use at the farm would be elevated from a de minimis to an adverse effect. Due to the high level of architectural integrity, loss of this resource would undermine the intent of Section 4(f)to preserve significant historic sites. Avoiding the sculpture garden by moving the alignment to the south would also result in impacts to low-to medium-function wetlands and riparian areas associated with a man-made feature in the southeast quadrant, impacts to high-quality wetland and riparian areas associated with the Big Thompson River, impacts to potential Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat and impacts to the NHRP-eligible properties of the Loveland and Greeley Canal and Farmers Ditch. Impacts to the NRHP properties of the Loveland and Greeley Canal and Farmers Ditch would be new compared to the impacts associated with the original alignment. Cumulatively, the severe and unique impacts to the Schmer Farm, wetlands and riparian areas associated with the Big Thompson River, potential Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat and two eligible ditches of moving the interchange south would make this alternative not feasible and prudent. Similar to the northern avoidance alternative,total avoidance of the park by moving the interchange south would still severely impact the features and attributes (views to and from the park)of the park that make • the park achieve the City's goals. This impact would severely affect the park basically rendering the park unusable for its intended purpose, as a gateway feature. The use of the sculpture garden can be effectively mitigated by moving the sculpture garden to a location more suited to its primary purpose as a gateway to the City of Loveland. A new location would provide better access and better visibility so the sculpture gardens features, attributes and activities are consistent with the City's goals for the park. Moving the eligible farmhouse and associated out buildings on the Schmer Farm would destroy the integrity of this property. The SHPO views this property as a unique significant property with a high degree of integrity since it has remained essentially unchanged since 1916. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The US 34/1-25 interchange has been designed to accommodate major movements between these regional facilities as well as accommodate safe and efficient local system traffic. Previous interchange design configurations were much wider and would have used a greater area of the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park and the Schmer Farm.The US 34/I-25 interchange is the most compact design possible to minimize right-of-way acquisition. Retaining walls have been included to minimize direct impacts. CDOT would pursue replacing acquired park land with a suitable replacement property of similar size for the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park due to the magnitude and character of parkland lost as a result of Packages A and B. Mitigation Measures for McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park • Coordinate with City of Loveland to relocate park to new location. • Coordinate with City of Loveland to identify new park, gateway, and visitors center location. • Continue coordination with City of Loveland into final design to assure no disruption of services • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-66 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-20 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park Packages A and B Use I III Imo' ' . _ t 4 I LEGEND j . , ,�, _ • GZ - .ern5Ealtainn_ Package A Park Impacts ` ` . --��• _ t • il G53 Package B Park Impacts l ,.'. '.•- " " • 4 irk AL a 1 4 r • iissispt : .. . 1:•. • a . I 1 1 , I .1' \ Cak-li 1 7c.. .ir ..... r I ♦ � t 1 ' , . C� te G !- • ; • }� y� •� 4 • \ l ` • c 1 n • •. ..• r, ...... .to ,4- iii\ I . i-....... ...—_-:..........) • elL at I',,1 A • A- ‘ ' 0 ..‘ \ 111111/► +++\�� I �` ' f , tI ;b IPr# , • )1, ii (LMCWHINNEYHAHNSCULPTURE PARK 1 ' . t ;;�. ' dr • • • • , 1. ; . 6 r . • NI 11 -.-4 rt tt, r.. it 1 . t . ., 1 atti., ... . rook 1 I 1 .. •• ra: lib i to] 1 • o-111". tab. 4 % p .... IMP i 1 ' • .T14, i In i r lc . 1 . 4 II 1•16 d Ali~ • :':' . . .•: . • • • . .. ,,_ . vrt ` " e• / , • ' • • . - ... 1 44 44 ies jaliMS117 ...4 s '~ Package A f Package B -i,1.,• ' , . , 1 .21 Acres 1 .21 Acres = r 1 At 41 OP a. C ate';• • • w , 1 / . Os Li I • ...C.41:N I a••/it' i I 1 1- - Location Map f 1.. h. ! I t V o o 0 6........s N..] • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-67 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-21 McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park Preferred Alternative Use .. w LEGEND . Park and Recreation Resources . '�,.J r --.- • w -,-----r-Pi" Imo:a- -- -. II ' • Preferred Alternative Resource Impact - .•. - -.. �. • • Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 4 ,, —ale • . "-""""'-' • M +� • — J •. ••~ . - McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park ).P - - . �� EOP Preferred Alternative F. Bridge Guardrails : I r, . t w ) .,, Roadway Features ■—. Retaining Wall ca. 'tI • 1I ee. -• • i I Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails .44!Ilk '� . � .. _ �� '. )1 • 1 __ - .• . _ II , .1, 1 r_ -- --.. .J 1 1 \k , a .- lbt' Mri " ¢. . "� `• ._ i I. ! 1 ` ' OM caibi irst, ti . . ,, , . ir , • • • . Ir. t _ts . ; "4 i• . t 1 . t ' - , 1 - . • - - I • i. or. • 10 . f .T ti S - �'' I Preferred Alternative }'""' i illt ) . i 411---,- . It P ; 2$'H �^,k 4 � � -..'= "` % • �1. `' Total Impacts = 1 .21 Acres ' I Ill •r •r� c► �,� ""' a j MCWHINNEY HAHN SCULPTURE PARK - f / ' � i , . d'Adi 4. r....., ..re..., .' e . b..: - _ _ - - . ...... .. r �.. . �_ • -ter _tiY ._ • �� _``.. air-Ira _ — —s I �I�i 6f.� . . - - .1�e�' ••- ►fir w tri=ans-ate s�� • s.�r��Ilw -n-Plitrr - lir --"I I Pr I •:r AI I 1 41 i 31 Is lit / . 4 I*, / tete -a Jai I . I i ,: 4.• IV , ,,_ it:N. -2-0 1 . . • ..;--g,., /o \ Location Map ___ ( . i\ I o 300 .. ll1 I Feet North Ill Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-68 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 5.5 DE MINIMIS IMPACTS SAFETEA-LU was enacted in August 2005. Guidance for addressing de minimis was provided in December 2005. This guidance authorizes the FHWA to approve a project that results in a de minimis impact to a Section 4(f) resource without the evaluation of avoidance alternatives typically required in a Section 4(f) evaluation. Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU amended 23 USC 138 which now states: "[T]he Secretary shall not approve any program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under Section 204 of this title) which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1)there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use." "(b) De Minimis Impacts.— (1) Requirements.— (A) Requirements for historic sites.—The requirements of this section shall be considered to be satisfied with respect to an area described in paragraph (2) 1111 if the Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a transportation program or project would have a de minimis impact on the area. (B) Requirements for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges.— The requirements of subsection (a) (1) shall be considered to be satisfied with respect to an area described in paragraph (3) if the Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a transportation program or project will have a de minimis impact on the area. The requirements of subsection (a) (2) with respect to an area described in paragraph (3) shall not include an alternatives analysis. (C)Criteria.— In making any determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider to be part of transportation program or project any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures that are required to be implemented as a condition of approval of the transportation program or project." There are different processes for evaluating de minimis for historic resources and park and recreational resources. These processes are outlined below. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.69 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5.5.1 De Minimis for Historic Resources Historic sites qualifying for Section 4(f) protection must be officially listed on or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The NRHP eligibility is established through the Section 106 process. Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU amended Title 23 USC Section 138(b)(2)which now states: "With respect to historic sites, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if— (A) the Secretary has determined, in accordance with the consultation process required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C 470f), that— @ the transportation program or project will have no adverse effect on the historic site; or (ii) there will be no historic properties affected by the transportation program or project; (B) the finding of the Secretary has received written concurrence from the applicable State historic preservation officer or tribal historic preservation officer (and from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if the Council is participating in the consultation process; and (C) the finding of the Secretary has been developed in consultation with the parties consulting as part of the process referred to in subparagraph (A)." The following Section 4(f) properties are recommended for de minimis determination. These • properties are shown on Figure 5 22 through Figure 5 53. Use of the properties has been evaluated based on current engineering design. The EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation is documentation and notification to SHPO that FHWA intends to make de minimis findings for the properties outlined in this section. Final de minimis findings cannot be made until SHPO has concurred with the effect determinations outlined in Section 3.15 Historic Preservation of this EIS. Although some consultations on effects for Packages A and B have occurred, this document provides the opportunity for consultation on all of the alternatives. The Final de minimis Finding will be included in the Record of Decision pending consultation outcome with the SHPO. Informal coordination with the SHPO has been ongoing. Concerns raised to date by the SHPO have been addressed. As described in Section 5.2.2, a de minimis finding for significant historic resources is recommended when the Section 4(f) use is minimal or trivial. The de minimis impact finding is based on the degree or level of use, including any avoidance, minimization and mitigation, or enhancement measures that are included in the project to address the Section 4(f) use. De minimis impact findings must be expressly conditioned upon the implementation of any measures that were relied upon to reduce the use to a de minimis level. Table 5-5, De Minimis Uses of Section 4(f) Historical Resources by Component, summarizes the effects on the individual historical resources. Additionally, the table lists the type of Section 4(f) use of each resource. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.70 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Package A Package B Preferred Alternative A-H1 Safety B-H1 Safety 1-25 Improvements Improvements: Improvements: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 5LR.8932 Larimer County Ditch 83 feet placed in two 83 feet placed in two 55 feet placed in two culvert extensions. culvert extensions. culvert extensions. 5LR.11396 Einarsen Farm 1.76 acres of 1.76 acres of 1.9 acres of property property as property as as incorporation of incorporation of incorporation of 1,600-foot by 50-foot 1,600-foot by 50- 1,600-foot by 50-foot strip of farmland into foot strip of farmland strip of farmland into project. into project. project. A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled 1-25 Improvements Improvements: Express Lanes: SH 14 to 511 60 SH 14 to SH 60 5LR.11409 Cache la Poudre A total length of 85 A total length of 85 A total length of 85 Reservoir Inlet feet of open ditch in feet of open ditch in feet of open ditch in culvert extensions. culvert extensions. culvert extensions. 5LR.2160 Boxelder Ditch A total of 137.5 feet A total of 137.5 feet A total of 194 feet of • of total ditch length of total ditch length total ditch length incorporated into a incorporated into a incorporated into a new 62.5-foot-long new 62.5-foot-long new 124-foot-long culvert and a 75- culvert and a 75- culvert and a 70- foot-long culvert foot-long culvert foot-long culvert extension. extension. extension. 5LR.503.2 Loveland and A total of 70 feet of A total of 70 feet of A total of 65 feet of Greeley Canal total ditch length in total ditch length in total ditch length in culvert extension. culvert extension. culvert extension. 5LR.8928 Farmers Ditch A total of 2,539 A total of 2,539 A total of 2,532 linear feet would be linear feet would be linear feet would be placed inside culvert placed inside culvert placed inside culvert extension. extension. extension. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-71 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources (cont'd) ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Package A Package B Preferred Alternative 5LR.11209 Schmer Farm A total of 6.61 acres A total of 7.0 acres A total of 5.48 acres of the total acreage of the total acreage of the total acreage of the historic farm of the historic farm of the historic farm subject to direct use, subject to direct use, subject to direct use, including an including an including a approximately 1,800- approximately 1,800- 3.86 acres strip of foot by 124-foot strip foot by 134-foot strip farmland (5.09 acres)of (5.48 acres)of incorporated into new farmland farmland elevated and at- incorporated into incorporated into grade ramps, and new elevated and at- new elevated and at 1.52 acres for grade ramps, and grade ramps, and construction of new 1.52 acres for 1.52 acres for access from US 34 to construction of new construction of new the frontage road access from US 34 access from US 34 leading to the to the frontage road to the frontage road Schmer farmhouse leading to the leading to the and businesses on Schmer farmhouse Schmer farmhouse the southwest corner and businesses on and businesses on of the interchange. the southwest corner the southwest corner of the interchange. of the interchange. 5LR.11210 McDonough Farm A total of 1.64 acres A total of 1.64 acres A total of 1.64 acres • by incorporation of a by incorporation of a by incorporation of a thin strip of farmland thin strip of farmland thin strip of farmland adjacent to US 34. adjacent to US 34. adjacent to US 34. 5LR.850 Great Western A total of 170 feet of A total of 240 feet of A total of 155 feet of 5WL.841 Railway total railroad length total railroad length total railroad length 5BL.514 incorporated into a incorporated into a incorporated into a new bridge. new bridge. new bridge. 5LR.11382 Hatch Farm A total of 2.1 acres A total of 2.2 acres A total of 1.33 acres of total property by of total property by of total property by incorporation of incorporation of incorporated into the narrow 850-foot and narrow 850-foot and transportation 450-foot strips of 450-foot strips of infrastructure. farmland into two farmland into two water quality ponds. water quality ponds. 5LR.8927 Hillsboro Ditch A total of 135 feet of A total of 135 feet of A total of 55 feet of total ditch length total ditch length total ditch length would be would be would be incorporated into incorporated into incorporated into culvert extensions. culvert extensions. culvert extensions. 5LR.11242 Mountain View Farm A total of 4.76 acres A total of 5.28 acres A total of 1.82 acres of the property by of the property by of the property incorporation of a incorporation of a adjacent to 1-25 and 65-foot by 3,200-foot 60-foot by 3,900-foot SH 402 incorporated strip of farmland strip of farmland into transportation. • adjacent to 1-25 and adjacent to 1-25 and SH 402. SH 402. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.72 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources (cont'd) ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Package A Package B Preferred Alternative A-H3 GP Highway B-H3 Tolled Preferred Improvements: Express Lanes: Alternative:1-25 SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 Improvements 5WL.5203 Bein Farm A total of 17.94 A total of 20.04 A total of acres by acres by 16.10 acres adjacent incorporation of a incorporation of a to 1-25 or SH 60 4,600-foot by 150- 4,600-foot by 170- incorporated into foot strip of farmland foot strip of farmland transportation adjacent to 1-25 and adjacent to 1-25 and infrastructure. an 800-foot by 110- an 800-foot by 110- foot strip of farmland foot strip of farmland adjacent to SH 60. adjacent to SH 60. 5WL.3149 Handy/Home Supply A total of 60 feet A total of 60 feet A total of 74 feet Ditch Confluence incorporated into incorporated into incorporated into culvert extensions. culvert extensions. culvert extensions. 5WL.5198 Olson Farm A total of 12.74 A total of 12.81 A total of 4.63 acres acres by acres by by incorporation of incorporation of land incorporation of land land from both sides • from both sides of from both sides of of 1-25. 1-25. 1-25. 5LR.488 Colorado&Southern A total of 0.03 acres No Use No Use Railway Depot— total property Loveland Depot 5WL.1966, Bull Canal/Standley A total of 908 feet of A total of 850 feet of A total of 736 feet of 5BF.76, Ditch the total ditch length the total ditch length the total ditch length 5BF.72, would be placed into would be placed into would be placed into 5AM.457 three culvert two culvert two culvert extensions. extensions. extensions. A-T1 Transit B-T1 Transit Preferred Component- Component-BRT: Alternative: Commuter Rail: Fort Commuter Rail Collins/Greeley to Fort Collins to Denver Longmont 5BL.3449 Supply Ditch A total of 65 feet of No use A total of 45 feet of total ditch length total ditch length would be placed into would be placed into a culvert extension. a culvert extension. 5BL.3113 Rough &Ready A total of 35 feet of No use A total of 45 feet of Ditch total ditch length total ditch length placed into a culvert placed into a culvert extension. extension. 5BL.4832 Oligarchy Ditch Culvert extension of No use Culvert extension of 48 feet. 64 feet. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-73 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Table 5-5 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Historical Resources (cont'd) ID Number Resource Section 4(f) Use Package A Package B Preferred Alternative A-T2 Transit B-T2 Transit Preferred Component- Component-BRT: Alternative: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Commuter Rail Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 5BL.9163 Kitely House A small strip of land No use A small strip of land totaling 385 square totaling 385 square feet on the eastern feet on the eastern edge of the property edge of the property would be acquired would be acquired for for construction of a construction of a retaining wall that retaining wall that would prevent would prevent greater use of the greater use of the property. property. 5LR.1729 Big Thompson Ditch A total of 60 feet of No use No Use total ditch length, placed into a culvert • extension. 5BL.513 Great Western Sugar A total of 0.33 acre No use No use of the property would be used for pedestrian walkway. 5WL.712 Sandstone Ranch A total of 2.17 acres No use A total of 1.45 acres of unused land of unused land within within the historic the historic district district used for new used for new railroad railroad right-of-way. right-of-way. 5WL.5461 Boulder&Weld A total of 63 feet of No use A total of 63 feet of County Ditch open ditch would be open ditch would be placed into a new placed into a new culvert. culvert. 5WL.1974 Rural Ditch A total of 130 feet of No use A total of 108 feet of open ditch would be open ditch would be placed into a new placed into a new culvert. culvert. 5WL.1317 UPRR-Dent Branch 4.89-mile No use 4.89-mile abandoned abandoned segment segment modernized modernized for for single-track double-track commuter rail commuter rail operations. operations. 200-foot sections modified to • install switching tracks. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-74 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Larimer County Ditch (5LR.8932.1) Description Location: 1-25, north of Larimer County Road (CR 56) Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Water supply and storage company Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Larimer County Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H1 Highway Component: B-H1 Highway Component: Safety Improvement: Safety Improvement: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 83 feet of open ditch would be placed 83 feet of open ditch would be placed inside new culvert extensions inside new culvert extensions Preferred Alternative SH1toSH14 • 55 feet placed in two culvert extensions Resource Description The Larimer County Ditch crosses 1-25 approximately 900 feet north of Larimer County Road (CR)56, south of the Town of Wellington. The ditch has been owned and operated by the Water Supply and Storage Company since 1892. The open ditch crosses underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road inside two almost continuous concrete culverts. The earthen ditch segment is approximately 20 feet wide with grassy levees, and traverses rural terrain. Eligibility Determination In 2001, the Larimer County Ditch (5LR.8932)was determined to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important contribution to irrigation in Larimer County. Segment 5LR.8932.1 does not support the eligibility of the greater ditch resource because of past modifications to its structure at the culvert crossings underneath I-25 and the existing east frontage road. Section 4(f) Use Packaoe A Package A improvements include a wider frontage road along the existing alignment parallel to the southbound 1-25 mainline, requiring a 38-foot-long culvert extension to the west side of the existing 35-foot-long culvert.A new 40-foot-wide frontage road would be built parallel to the east side of the northbound I-25 mainline, requiring a new concrete box culvert crossing of the ditch at that location. The new culvert would place 45 feet of open ditch within a concrete culvert.The length of open ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would total 83 feet. There would be no mainline 1-25 improvements in this area (see Figure 5-22). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of I-25 and frontage road, and Package A improvements are • minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Ditch. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.75 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B Package B improvements include the same uses as Package A. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of 1-25 and frontage road, and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Latimer County Ditch (see Figure 5-22). Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative improvements include a wider frontage road along the west side of the existing alignment parallel to the southbound 1-25 mainline and a new 40-foot-wide frontage road parallel to the east side of the northbound 1-25 mainline. The Preferred Alternative also includes one new travel lane and a buffer separated TEL in each direction. The overall footprint for improvements has been reduced from Packages A and B as a result of moving the additional highway lanes to the center median as opposed to outside the existing highway footprint. The resulting use of this resource is the addition of a 25-foot-long culvert extension to the west side and a 30-foot-long culvert extension on the east side of the existing 35-foot-long culvert under 1-25. The length of open ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would total 55 feet(see Figure 5-23). Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of I-25 and the frontage road and Preferred Alternative improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Larimer County Ditch. It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A. B, and Preferred Alternative • The 1-25 frontage road improvements incorporate safety shoulder widening in conformance with standard engineering design, and have been moved outside of the safety clear zone for the mainline 1-25 travel lanes. Mitigation Measures for Larimer County Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-76 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-22 Larimer County Ditch — Packages A and B Use LEGEND 1 Historical Resources I Packages A & B Resource Impact Packages A & B ROW Boundary 5LR 8932 1 Property Boundary ( j Packages EOP E.. Bridge / Culvert I, lj Roadway Features .. Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries L� Guardrails I 71 I ' 1i ii e x ' Existing 1-25 culvert will remain in place. - I , 1, a-- New 38-foot-long culvert i , bt. . - extension over West Frontage Road . M • • 0 ... . _ 1 it • t • — .� �'�` . Ill 1 • r • 1` \t . . , it ' ;11 p I oio . • a—, .. , 0 ii / �} `\ i i i t i Y "'t ,I I ' 1 „ . li I aT New 45-foot-long culvert Q , extension over East Frontage Road ;: il . ME .. 1 $ NB !' ' { S f3 , I ucaa t ion Map III , , V N 200 /\ . . III a- I Feet North Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-77 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportationIII Figure 5-23 Larimer County Ditch — Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND ` Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary SLR 8932 1 Resource Boundary , 1 :referredAlWeaAive i—.. Bridge rCul,fart 4 lri OP Roadway Features III som. Retnung W.il! _ Fars Parrwi Sound-antis, Asa Guerdrmts - ' raa Existing 115 culvert ) will remain in place I . , . i' New 25 tout lung culvert . extension over West Frontage Road , l ( `� " el I I ? \. 4 f -- --;l'`'1 ' ' PVItiest III // 1 r .I w_ _ . . , . pi, zhy, 4, t M--- :I :'v"I.i 4r. • d f',7 d a • l ! Y ,w .� �, ,/ New 30-fout-Icing culvert , extension over East Frontage Road "sr I - r. , 1----- ./ 1 f iist 1!1 4 1 tr . 4_ . i . , 3E /1 r , J 7 aiy rr—ri - t,� _ NB Location Map SB lr I A � 0 200 f\ . lam. I Feet North it 4 i IIIa , _ • I t Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-78 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Einarsen Farm (5LR.11396) Description Location: 1320 Northeast Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Einarsen Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H1 Highway Component: B-H1 Highway Component: Safety Improvement: Safety Improvement: SH1toSH14 SH1toSH14 1.76 acres of property as incorporation 1.76 acres of property as incorporation of of 1,600-foot by 50-foot strip of 1,600-foot by 50-foot strip of farmland farmland into project into project Preferred Alternative SH1toSH14 • 1.9 acres of property as incorporation of 1,600-foot by 50-foot strip of farmland into project. Resource Description The historic Einarsen Farm (5LR.11396)is located on the east side of 1-25 at 1320 Northeast Frontage Road. The farm, which was established in 1890, consists of an intact barn and hipped roof cottage-style farmhouse. Eligibility Determination Based on its association with 19th century Larimer County agriculture and the good integrity of the farm structures built during the period of significance (1880s to 1940s),this farm has been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A and C. Section 4(f) Use Package A At this location,the existing configuration of two general-purpose lanes in each direction would be maintained and the east frontage road would be widened to add paved shoulders. Realignment and widening of the east frontage road and associated right-of-way expansion would encroach upon the southwestern edge of this historic farm property. Under Package A, a narrow strip of land extending north from East Vine Drive would be permanently incorporated into the transportation right-of-way. This acquired right-of-way would allow construction of wider roadway shoulders and would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historic farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road.This strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection, tapering to zero feet wide at the northernmost point near the ranch access road. The used area is along the edge of a cultivated field and contains 1.76 acres within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are located near the proposed improvements. See • Figure 5-24 for Package A uses of this property. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-79 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The historical farm setting was permanently altered in the 1960s by initial construction of 1-25 and introduction of the highway and associated traffic noise. Currently,the farmhouse is located 80 feet from the east edge of the existing frontage road. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. A temporary construction easement could be necessary along the western edge of the property for haul roads, construction access, and staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this temporary occupancy of the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction-related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, and would not permanently affect the atmosphere of the farm setting. Thus, indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities would occur, but would not be expected to significantly diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm,farm structures and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. Because of the small amount of farmland directly used, its proximity to the existing non-historic frontage road, and the fact that no historic farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-24 for Package A uses of this property. Package B Use of this historical farm under Package B are very similar in nature and extent to those anticipated under Package A. A slightly shorter segment of the east frontage road would be realigned and widened. The acquired right-of-way to allow construction of wider roadway shoulders would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historical farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road. The used strip of land measures approximately 1,600 feet in length, and 50 feet at its • widest extent near the East Vine Drive intersection tapering to zero feet wide at the northernmost point. The used 1.76 acres are located along the edge of a cultivated field within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are located near the proposed improvements. Because of the small amount of farmland impacted, its proximity to the existing non-historic frontage road, and the fact that no historic farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-25 for Package B uses of this property. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would add one general purpose lane and one TEL in each direction. A narrow sliver of land extending along and north from East Vine Drive would be permanently incorporated into the transportation right-of-way to accommodate these improvements and construct wider shoulders along the eastern frontage road. This acquired right-of-way would permanently bury open farmland along the southwestern edge of this historic farm property under fill slopes associated with the wider frontage road and at the intersection with East Vine Drive.The area of use is along the edge of a cultivated field within the historic boundary. No historical buildings are near the proposed improvements (see Figure 5-26). With the Preferred Alternative improvements, the farmhouse would be 70 feet away from the east edge of the frontage road as opposed to the 80 feet away it currently sits. Noise levels associated with increased traffic levels on 1-25 and the frontage road would result in a two decibel increase over existing conditions. This noise increase is barely perceptible.The changes to the local terrain are minimal and there are no highway features introduced by the proposed improvements that would indirectly affect the historic farm or visual context of the farm. Changes in noise and physical setting and atmosphere are not expected to diminish the function, character, feel, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings and farmhouse NRHP-eligible. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-80 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. A temporary construction easement could be necessary along the western edge of the property for haul roads, construction access, and staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent use would be anticipated from this use of the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature, and would not permanently affect the atmosphere of the farm setting.Thus indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities would occur, but would not be expected to significantly diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm,farm structures and farmhouse NRHP- eligible. Due to the small amount of farmland impacted, its proximity to the existing non-historic frontage road, and the fact that no historical farm buildings are located in this vicinity, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Einarsen Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A.B.and Preferred Alternative The design of the transportation improvements was dictated by safety requirements for the intersections of the frontage roads and Vine Drive on either side of I-25.All possible measures to minimize harm were included. Mitigation Measures for Einarsen Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Ad. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-81 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-24 Einarsen Farm Package A Use III. r . .. R i LEGEND t I Historical Resources I I I __ Package A Resource Impact 4 . e \ ' II ' Package A ROW Boundary , - • 5LR.11396 Property Boundary !,� i ..._ . A Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrailsi I s• - t . . Roadway Features M.. Retaining Wad Parcel Boundaries �r Guardrails , If �' ` �tt�`) 1� t � h •�J i ® 1LI L' I� call! 1 ,'f . � ( 2 te--1 rrt rrr: it_.: 'y I r -i, PIP - :0 4 - - ii . Mt " -.m-- . - - f t. \-itIrli te tomb er e 1 I tip, _, ;,„ I . 11 i , ., "' 1 v id lbII a 141-ITir ini ligattalidall -0;4 II y ,ta . vi x - ._ . ., . .„ ... ...ir , 4 , a lit sr..: ' '' ..... dear' '' al ad rittririrptia; rrn tr r rt tk. - ... _ - ....: . is i il'r- fl& ' ' u amok, ji at . p.• : illt...,A i • il . , 7. „ .. isrig-1 • ir, 8 p tit's" it .1 a \ i �e , �'r, itilfilw•* ili it Awn 1P _, I y a :0,'- / - 4 i / i Ivse elle I\ . .., t to: , • F-_-_, tip. 1..). I . Area = 76.694 Sq Acres = 1 .76 1i • ei, , . r 2, , . WI:3"Q 1 1 i y ktftrifitl PI rib I , T �! eg It Tie rd,r,* I l I • ,Rl r 1 •-i. /♦Ii 7 ! pc it `'' �` � l -/ s• 4. ; 13� ^M /` ‘ • I t i t. "� ' ,t r I,. I, Ana-i Kgsgoind I Pal• 1.....:--- 1 - --.4 E VIN w- ! 4- , _• J D I _ T i . c, -Er illI ,r• , .� _ I l' l (r f 4- .. j \ I tttr..l L 0 400 Imimi I Feet No►tn II Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-82 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information. cooperation transportation- Figure 5-25 Finarsen Farm Package B Use r.•- , . L L , L " .a.. w •wt . r LEGEND - Si fit:,.. . 4 ' "„'k ,- Historical Resources '4'. _ Package B Resource Impact if, ' Package B ROW Boundary . _ _ • 5LR. 11396 Property Boundary4 MA' • L-- A Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails Re— S , N.. ET Roadway Features F. Retaining Wall r Parcel Boundaries ^, Guardrails �� "- �n ti ' r rfrltt� ��. . ; ;`Ni/ Its �t • i �� kr i # t1jjrn: i7 /aCt � e ® �' ,: ' ip is trillri 1 I claw!, : . .r 1 9 0 i, id el r X iSI ff 4, 1 x 1 i rrir g 4 -1.. '• . ii: EL % i re _.. . ,1 __ _ . re_ , , . _. ... , - r-J Fr-i ritrrr - �: l L _ t ; rfr• * 1, , ip : :t AR.: rtintrria i . lif 1, Irr-- *VT Z; to i I -r . p, ; r . ..,. , , . . . a ; . .7 kik :kr, iii 10 —.e - - a :„..i4 Ill r ice, pi, r ,�-1r jr� If ' Ir. ti < �� + �` � �„ as _ ad • Area = 76,694 Sq Ft ' - r C. /` T j Acres = 1 .76 1 * ': ger lit ) / Agtpi %Ili 0- IIIIIF} ` 44 �r t r 'f-f--1.-- t2ti: -----,_ --)41 OF N ,4,:te : .k.i. .4,04 : los • , k :! IL'. ' :- - 'I 1 — J . . 1 • . • n--- i //4 ,- . -.44444.r. •L r 11 , I-, Lai i �� .•' r ta 51 t E-VINEkey, -DR- \b {-— Y: 1 / ' r I • ' Location Map - ------1 / i i n. (---.. i f . \ 0 400 r� Lmill 1 Feet North ill Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-83 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 5-26 Einarsen Farm — Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND 'II II {II" IIriJ ' 4.,• I ' I ' • .„, ,, , . Historical Resources . , Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ► ) I I j Preferred AltematIve ROW Boundary ? - / • II t r . SLR 11396 Property Boundary �I II -_ _ 1 Profaned NtornatrvoI I 4• L— �--a Bridge Guardrail: ' •;1- r I P . m.8- I + NEED React.ray Finaluns �t Rnlair,inq MI • j ifr II I r r' �� i �t t 1 , Liii Parcel � Pcel Boundaiers , Guardrails I , II I i , ► .' - _ atiriaELIErnsdir: esai - . 4. l' I , , • _, 71 lailiall �_ t i /tga4 '4' .. H . f. ,11.111 ,. '-�, t, r-rismt- rt f . . __ I r. r 17 rr ) - 1 1 oil .7 ___! la C Illi $ art in . .."--ii 1, , -- . OW ) ;-- I! ' I I t. I • j et 'r 7 i' 1 APO I . . : , ,, ... ix _si .7 wavagialilift -d-ii ' tat; dal *7 ' ' I I : isjd .-7 es e ': s. : - ' , Salt'? 1 hill gal i.r.7 Pl' I 1 1 •01, il !!' , ,11 ?:feri . ritilliirt le I •• .".. „. ` e -I HOOP -1 kit' I 111 AV*Iliiiir =snit -. ' ta ist„:. - a: . r pi ipir . i 01 is...„7„.-..,s,k,,,...,„\-•,,,N, ..,e,; 1 1. ! it\ N N ,\ \ e 1 ) '!'t 1 ., 0 �-1 :-skice. 7,..a p F ' T `] ret. Area - 8�,660 Sq 11 •rit IL. 4fr-riff" aity„ sr" atitea! I Acres + 1.90 ayarrirri, ... . ia , 4 ,, f-tra art / kviu- , lom . ;I IL i :III "i • ett,..)pb •Iike , .. • 11 . if- w t) 'lea! - le( 04► ' I I _, i sir ill a--..4„ ,L- -- , I , , . L ,./ , _ .... A ir• . Pli• lisii I I ilif '� r - ..._.. __ i_ ill - -_ _ 5 _ El-Crum-War- _ I �I _ - , -ti" - 1. �1 I t ` ._ i i t, T,,. / III I i �' ,, 1 ' le ,- location Map 'I II "-- -- --__ i f , I , I 0 400 /` , i� I Feet North I. I! III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-84 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation_ Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet (5LR.11409) Lake Canal (5LR.995.4) Description Location: North 1-25 and Prospect Road Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect No adverse effect Finding: Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total length of 85 feet of open ditch A total length of 85 feet of open in culvert extensions ditch in culvert extensions Preferred Alternative • SH 14 to SH 60 A total length of 85 feet of open ditch in culvert extensions. Resource Description The entire inlet ditch was built as part of a larger irrigation system developed in 1892. The ditch is 10 miles long ending at Cache la Poudre Reservoir. The ditch crosses 1-25 approximately 1,400 feet north of Prospect Road. The ditch crosses 1-25 at a drop box that runs east under I-25. It continues southeast,terminating at a point where the ditch parallels Prospect Road. The well maintained segment is 3,750 feet long, 36 feet wide, and 10 feet deep. The ditch segment is concrete lined and contains a modern drop box, control house, and complex system of gated box culverts that are interactive with Lake Canal. The ditch traverses cultivated fields and is sporadically lined with riparian habitat of shrubs, willows, and cottonwoods. Eligibility Determination The entire feature (5LR.11409)is eligible under Criteria A and C.The Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet is eligible under Criterion A for its association with a period of intensive development of successful agriculture. The inlet ditch is significant as part of an engineered water storage and delivery system associated with corporate irrigation projects in Colorado prior to the sugar beet industry. The portion of the inlet ditch crossing 1-25(5LR.11409.1) is non-supporting due to earlier modifications including piping under 1-25 and other improvements. Section 4(f) Use Package A Package A would require an extended culvert at Station 4050. A 75-foot-long extension of a culvert farther east of the existing concrete box culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at • the same culvert would be needed to carry the widening of existing west frontage road shoulders and the Prospect Road interchange widened northbound 1-25 on-ramp. The total length of the inlet ditch placed inside a new culvert extensions would be 85 feet. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-85 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road, and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-27 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Package B would require an extended culvert at Station 4050. A 75-foot-long extension of double concrete box culvert farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at the same double concrete box culvert would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and Prospect Road interchange widened northbound 1-25 on-ramp. The total length of the inlet ditch placed inside new culvert extensions would be 85 feet. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road, and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-27 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would require an extended culvert at STA 4050.A 75-foot-long extension of double CBC farther east of the existing culvert outflow and a 10-foot-long extension west of the intake at the same double CBC would be needed to carry the widening of west frontage road shoulders and the widened Prospect Road interchange northbound I-25 on-ramp. • Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 ramps and frontage road and the Preferred Alternative improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT therefore, have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. (see Figure 5-28) Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A.B. and Preferred Alternative The existing Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet passes underneath 1-25 in a concrete box culvert and has lost its historic integrity. Use of retaining walls to minimize the need for culvert extensions along the west side of I-25 are incorporated into the proposed 10-foot extension. Because the integrity of this segment has already been compromised, the eastern outfall of the ditch would not be modified. Mitigation Measures for the Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-86 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-27 Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet — Packages A and B Use LEGEND Historical Resources ( r' �' I r Packages A & B Resource Impact s '"Q Min I.Packages A & BROW Boundary '1k 5LR.995.4 & 5LR.11409. 1 Boundaries r r/ Packages EOP N.. Bridge / Culvert 'h ( t Roadway Features Fs Retaining Wall I . I; r NB Parcel Boundaries `.A Guardrails I SB en ' 1 gir 4'* . Pir c.t t �. - Lake Canal - I a _ s . ; r. - / 14 .4,1004 . ii II et 4 S . ^ N 0) Ill . JO. .. . a I it . , 25 _ A. * + it a R. co le _ _A ca r I. Oa I• , ri vklif. 7 . a . v CO0 . 4- ;l , . It 1 CI jr r l}r . liir ail , 0 S iij . I, , la" I 1� - • To 1 - - . \ tal length new . - -, 10-foot culvert .. - culverts 460 feet extensions O4f _ i , * \ tr. Dual 75-foot-long culvert extensions "-' , = f I sir r ,� F r 1 4Illa4 s `� ! fttin375tootion4) 4likt - i gii . Pf / � h I Lact, tion Map — - / U 260 0 6_4Feet North ; Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-87 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-28 Cache la Poudre Reservoir Inlet— Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND I Historical Resources I Preferred Alternative Resource Impact MPreferred Alternative ROW Boundary 5LR 995.4 8 5LR.11409.1 Resource Boundary Preferred Alternative ♦ .. Bridge r Culvert , FOP t Roadway Features a—t Retaining Wall - I C Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails " r { I , -- 1 Ai, LL ;Ij' iii f y r • . -r t 10-foot culvert 114. 't extensions 1 1 i il e. r 1�� Dual 75 foot-long culvert extensions i,t nee j111III Existing 375-foot-long culverts under 1-25 Ii 4 _________,, .,_;y i 1 \. - . ... �,l 0G ry�t, xer - /i�Fr ( _ \ t ‘ I \ ' te, %! ti, ��!i ' tC !� ` v . ;isy �, r.:! •• i ., N.. •. . gi - 1r 95 Linear Feet Impacted SIAS Location M p _ Prospect-St — t -- A., 1 I I 111 - l 1 r {n a i - „„, • „ , , /,‘„, ,_ V \I i .. sitl, _ �ttt.d 310Feet �� } lit .. .�, � North ) . Ill Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-88 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Boxelder Ditch (5LR.2160) Description Location: North 1-25 and SH 68(Exit 265) Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Boxelder Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 137.5 feet incorporated into a A total of 137.5 feet incorporated into a new 62.5-foot-long new culvert and a 75- new 62.5-foot-long new culvert and a 75- foot-long culvert extension foot-long culvert extension Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements: • A total of 194 feet incorporated into a new 124-foot-long culvert and a 70-foot-long culvert extension. A greater length of ditch is used because of the wider highway footprint. Resource Description The ditch was originally built in the mid-1880s. The entire ditch is approximately 5 miles long. Boxelder Ditch crosses 1-25, Harmony Road, and the northbound highway ramp at the Harmony Road interchange. The recorded segment in the project APE(5LR.2160.1) is 3,194 feet, or approximately 0.6-mile long. The earthen ditch is approximately 12 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under the existing roadways was altered when the highway was constructed and is routed through a steel pipe culvert. Grassy vegetation exists along both banks of the ditch in most areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Eligibility Determination The Boxelder Ditch (5LR.2160)was officially determined to be NRHP-eligible by the OAHP in 1996. The ditch is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. The segment within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, design, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A Under Package A, the I-25/Harmony Road interchange would be realigned, including widening of the on-and off-ramps. Boxelder Ditch is currently enclosed inside a pipe underneath the existing ramps,fill slopes, and mainline 1-25 traffic lanes. To accommodate construction of a new southbound off-ramp from 1-25,which would be situated 90 feet west of the existing ramp alignment, a 75-foot-long section of the open Boxelder • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-89 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Ditch would need to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the ramp. The remainder of the ditch located within the area proposed for Package A highway improvements is already piped under 1-25,the northbound on-ramp to 1-25, and Harmony Road, and no new direct use would occur in those locations. A small direct use would occur where the ditch would pass beneath a new property access road on the southeast side of the interchange. This new access road would terminate at a cul-de-sac and is required to replace an existing access from the abandoned east frontage road.A total of 62.5 feet of open ditch would have to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the proposed cul-de-sac. Installation of the new culvert would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction. The two box culverts required under Package A would enclose a total of 137.5 feet of open ditch that retain integrity, but would not alter its historic alignment. Because these direct uses constitute less than one percent of the entire length of the Boxelder Ditch, and would not significantly diminish or alter characteristics that render the ditch eligible for NRHP, FHWAand CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-29 for uses associated with Package A. Package B This use is identical to Package A. CDOT has determined that Package B would also result in no adverse effect to the Boxelder Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-29 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative,the I-25/Harmony Road interchange would be modified, including widening of • the on-and off-ramps. Boxelder Ditch is currently enclosed inside a pipe underneath the existing ramps, fill slopes and mainline 1-25 traffic lanes. To accommodate construction of a new southbound off-ramp from I-25, which would be situated 90 feet west of the existing ramp alignment, a 124-foot-long section of the open Boxelder Ditch would need to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the ramp. The remainder of the ditch located within the area proposed for Preferred Alternative highway improvements is already piped under 1-25, the northbound on-ramp to 1-25, and Harmony Road, and no new direct impacts would occur in those locations (see Figure 5-30). A small use would occur where the ditch would pass beneath a new property access road on the southeast side of the interchange. This new access road is a cul-de-sac, required to replace the existing access from the abandoned east frontage road.A total of 70 feet of open ditch would have to be enclosed inside a box culvert beneath the proposed cul-de-sac. Installation of the new culvert would likely require a temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from all sediment and physical encroachment by construction.All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to the original condition and appearance. The two box culverts required under the Preferred Altemative would enclose a total of 194 feet of open ditch that retain integrity, but would not alter its historic alignment.A greater quantity of ditch length is used because of the wider highway footprint. These direct impacts constitute less than one percent of the entire length of the Boxelder Ditch, and would not significantly diminish or alter characteristics that render the ditch eligible for NRHP, and FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-90 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A.B. and Preferred Alternative Impacts to the ditch in the northwest quadrant were minimized by adding a retaining wall along the west edge of the southbound off-ramp. Realigning the southbound off-ramp to avoid the ditch would result in a substandard design with regard to design speed and sight distance. Impacts to the ditch in the southeast quadrant were minimized by realigning the northbound off-ramp. Realignment of this ramp to avoid use of the ditch was not possible without compromising accepted design standards. Mitigation Measures for Boxelder Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-91 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 5-29 Boxelder Ditch Packages A and B Use _..... I •l II �'' LEGEND .IHistorical Resources I II {. t • lit, Mil Packages A & B Resource Impact . II II . . t► .r1' Packages A & B ROW Boundary III II , 4a :;4, ^". Total impacts to ditch : 137.5 feet 5LR.2160. 1 Property Boundary :1 r� II 1I LEG: Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert 1 i s t [7-311 Roadway Features 100C Retaining Wall ; it I II ili t, .: _' —C Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails 11 11 •''S Open ditch placed II11 inside extended culvert; - f lI I 75 Linear Feet Impacted • r ", a:1, 4,-' . I f II 11 z •' . . P46 l �� 4; II II II • III. I' II * r--- Iit tai I . .. I , ill lh •ii Extin culvt . I 1 " �j . Existing. / Lv-7-48.9147-74•--- . . A , - _ ,. _ L. _IL Lc‘i...m. .. . ...1..Th M o NY. - c = — '� al kl: 1.7. y, ,.. "1 - - I .- - it `I I e ai as t •"« ° \ I • . .-. - .---- -awe., - - a LialirJ., - -: 1' . : i tin, 4. / 1 l t r t • 1` J t t'i . 1\-Ai - Existin. culvert , �) ' - \\, • jgb. r .,!• i irt. i\\ te 1 • �. � �._ J-7-- 1,'1 OE!Eacted • i6 , ir ri-_;_ Location Map,,; 0 300 17N i iii I Feet 0 il ' \ North It IP • . Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-92 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • - information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5 30 Boxelder Ditch Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND_ Vt. C7 Historical Resources , Preferred Alternative Resource Impact i Q Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary I I Total impacts to ditch. 194 feet 5LR.2160.1 Resource Boundary �i • Preferred Alternative �� Bridge /Culvert t'• • • �' DEOP Roadway Features F- Retaining Wall ;. il ' '' ° ' " . .a as i �—stet �: • Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails Open ditch placed . ; .. ;• I, inside extended culvert; t 1111 124 Linear Feet Impacted '., . albsTi ' -*.e . ..0, , . • ,c' �� ti J 1. • r _ g_ a 1 I 1 t f _ • _ -i J t. • , Existing culvert ` 'r I tz.--jy . bI __ r III .. _ _ , c'JE=fiarmo Rd _ ,__,-----„____1_,_�-------„_______iu � - • ir. "_ ,4/. 4 -1--J L j ' • r r . • . f A I • .iii ,1:::: Li/iIt '\ ; �- , l Ps ,.-- I , r (' ,i • I. ~' Existing culvert `M1 �— 1 v • . .Nn. 1 1 I/ / ..- n's ' ry i ' f J � VP Open ditch placed 1 inside new culvert; (� ', i• lL ! 70 Linear Feet Impacted \ { - Iocation Mai) 0 300 ,,,N\ t Feet ' ' i ter North Ifp ' „,. Ill Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-93 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. • Loveland and Greeley Canal (5LR.503.2) Description Location: Crosses project corridor at various points in the vicinity east of 1-25 along US 34 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Loveland and Greeley Canal by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 70 feet in culvert A total of 70 feet in culvert extension extension Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 65 feet in culvert extension. Resource Description • The canal was originally built in 1861.The entire canal is approximately 31 miles long. Two documented segments are in the project APE. Segment 5LR.503.2 of the historic Loveland and Greeley Canal crosses 1-25, as well as the parallel frontage road, and is 2.62 miles long. The canal is approximately 39 feet wide and 26 feet deep. During the construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, the original canal alignment was preserved but the integrity of the canal in this location was compromised by placing it within a concrete box culvert under the highway.The three-sided, pre-cast concrete box culvert measures 23 feet wide and 402.6 feet long. Both banks of the canal are grass-covered, and riprap is used for bank stabilization in many areas. The area surrounding the canal segment includes retail and residential development. The earthen ditch segment 5LR.503.4 follows the historic channel alignment through the old town area of Loveland.The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Eligibility Determination In 1984,the Loveland &Greeley Canal was evaluated by the OAHP as NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important contribution to agricultural development in the Loveland area. The Loveland and Greeley Canal is nearly 150 years old and evokes the historic agricultural era and conveys the important contribution that irrigation canals made to local history. Segment 5LR.503.2 retains physical integrity except where it was placed in a culvert beneath 1-25. Segment 5LR.503.4 retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A Segment 5LR.503.2: Package A involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction for a total of six traffic lanes. Although more mainline travel lanes would be constructed on 1-25, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way without affecting • the existing culvert conveying the canal underneath the highway. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.94 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. A new US 34 interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp would be constructed outside the existing highway right-of-way and would cross the Loveland and Greeley Canal east of the existing culvert opening. The existing box culvert must be extended an additional 70 feet on the east side of 1-25 and the northbound 1-25 on-ramp would be built over the top of the new extended culvert. Construction of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access.The ditch would likely be diverted temporarily during culvert construction but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from construction-related sedimentation. The 70-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. This change would affect only a fraction of the 31-mile-long channel, and would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible. Segment 5LR.503.4: None of the proposed improvements would cause changes to this historic property. The 70-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. Because this change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-31 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Segment 5LR.503.2: Package B involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing a total of eight lanes:two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. Although more • lanes would be constructed,they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way with the exception of a new US 34 to north-bound 1-25 on-ramp. Effects to the historic canal would the same as would occur under Package A, and involves extending the existing three-sided concrete box culvert beneath 1-25 an additional 70 feet to the east to accommodate the proposed new 1-25 on-ramp.Temporary impacts due to construction of the US 34 ramp and installation of the new culvert would be the same as Package A. Although 70 feet of canal with integrity on the east side of I-25 would be placed in a culvert extension,this change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render the canal eligible for the NRHP; therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-31 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Segment 5LR.503.2: The Preferred Alternative involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general purpose lanes and a buffer-separated TEL in each direction for a total of eight traffic lanes.Although more mainline travel lanes would be constructed on I-25, they would fit within the existing CDOT right-of-way without affecting the existing culvert conveying the canal underneath the highway. A new US 34 interchange northbound 1-25 on-ramp would be constructed outside the existing highway right-of-way and would cross the Loveland and Greeley Canal east of the existing culvert opening. The existing box culvert must be extended an additional 65 feet on the east side of 1-25 and the north-bound 1-25 on-ramp would be built over the top of the new extended culvert(see Figure 5-32). Construction of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access.The ditch would likely be diverted temporarily during culvert construction but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from construction-related sedimentation. All disturbance caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and • affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-95 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The 65-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under Package A would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment.This change would affect only a fraction of the 31-mile-long channel, and would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP-eligible. Segment 5LR.503.4: None of the proposed improvements would cause changes to this historic property. The 65-foot culvert extension and temporary construction impacts required under the Preferred Alternative would enclose a very short section of open canal with integrity, and would not alter the canal's historic alignment. Because this change would not diminish or alter characteristics that render it NRHP- eligible, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-32 for uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages AB. and Preferred Alternative The northbound on-ramp was shifted closer to the 1-25 mainline in order to avoid encroachment on the Centerra Shopping Center on the northeast quadrant of the 1-25/US 34 interchange. This design change also resulted in a shorter length of the ditch being subject to direct uses. No other minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. Mitigation Measures for the Loveland and Greeley Canal ▪ Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4jf)Evaluation 5-96 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-31 Loveland and Greeley Canal Package A and B Use t - or / I L LEGEND ■ i v. ifk.f , ,`- ,� - Historical Resources _,e (\ t Packages A & B Resource Impact II tr ■ W j] 1 Packages A & B ROW Boundary II 5LR.503.2 Property Boundary I ` ` • 1 i 1 Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert I k - { A. • Roadway Features ■--� Retaining Wall ® f d 1 Parcel Boundaries �.A Guardrails 1 1• ar I I Is-- -t! y H ,i 1 i • I 1 ” 4 / ayy r tv 1, r I ' ' I Y + i t I ■ ,t l t • t \ L •i y • . i I , ., i ditillitalliellaill c 0 Existing culvert . , • — e - Ili t i I � 1 Is C Open ditch placed inside extended culverts; ' 70 Linear Peet Impacted • • ,. ! t y • A • .r_ 7itl %r ) 7,A , ,...r........,, ,_ '-,,_ l.� sue, l 4r;t . . ir g i kmit :F. \ ------ . rl .' 1 1 \ . ii 4 .4 , , , ) - trit13-1 r — --,) • IrIP:t . 4' I :! _alit i- - i— iii tr �" ! p - llir IR , LI , -tc ./ Li I , 1 a .4,9 ' _ location Map ) .;; C i . � / 0 200 a * - t milmil 1 Feet 0 • �` North I + t . 1 1 • `III Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-97 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 Figure 5-32 Loveland and Greeley Canal Preferred Alternative Use . I r V, la LEGEND 4 • Historical Resources . 4. k • ‘ t is. ew r _ arc A • r • Preferred Alternative Resource Impact • aF ' . i h • ,_ 4 1, r.-,,,..c1. 1 S Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 5LR 503.2 Resource Boundary 4 li r 1, 1 l t Preferred Alternative Fa BridgeCulvert y r 4, EOP rS/ ' ' 1R - Roadway Features Retaining Wall t • Parcel Boundares A., Guardrails 1 1. r ' r r , iiet e ..". ., ' . ..II; •'—5;:ass'l'i. itot 7. its je," .• w ..ill t—is • t y ,a. i .I:I.. I.4 4: : It; . , .0 i • tfTtasø * tr • .I r . N ; • i. tr: 4r !TY y � I • Itia:._, ... lie; Toh.• �yAt r r �• 1 ` _ nWi • . 1 . 4 0.-. S Existing culvert 4 '° :`• a 1 0 • f ".Ai - 1 O. '' 1 '� i Y . ; � '' Z• • ► t tip► :)pen ditch placed inside extended culverts: • 55 Linear Feet Impacted i .w . Alm J l t r+ r 1 4 • 1 ,i ci . , 4„ . . . : misfede":,i a . ' ,,,,_ I i `Rns . . . . i.• C • TT'- `f�. r, . r • art fitt • r j ; I , : ♦/ , I '.! ;r ir f r - • j .4 a .'1 , • r. •l creation Map I j ,1 . '� • , j - l • -..0 ; r, - � .•0 200 �� • r• etie! Y .. {_tttttttttttttttt t 1 Feet North 1 •a • '� • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-98 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928.1) Description Location: US 34, immediately east of I-25/US 34 interchange Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Farmers Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 2,539 linear feet would be A total of 2,539 linear feet would placed inside culvert extensions be placed inside culvert extensions Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 2,532 linear feet would be placed inside culvert extension. Resource Description This irrigation ditch was originally built in 1864. The entire Farmers Ditch is approximately 15 miles long. Three segments of the ditch are present within the APE (see Figure 5-33). Segment 5LR.8928.1 of the Farmers Ditch crosses 1-25 parallel to US 34 in the vicinity of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. Here,the • earthen canal is approximately 16 feet wide and 1.49 miles long. The levees and banks along both sides of the ditch are grass-covered.The surrounding area includes retail and residential development. Segment 5LR.8928.2 is the portion of the irrigation ditch located west of 1-25 and within the northeast quadrant of the interchange where Farmers Ditch crosses US 34. The ditch has been lined with concrete and realigned and modified by commercial development and construction of 1-25 and US 34. The segment is 1.8 miles long. Segment 5LR.8928.7 of the historic Farmers Ditch generally runs perpendicular to 1-25 and crosses the proposed Package A commuter railway alignment. The earthen ditch is 151 feet long and 9 feet wide. Grassy vegetation lines both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development. Eligibility Determination The entire Farmers Ditch(5LR.8928)is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.7 retain visual and structural integrity within a semi-rural setting, and both segments support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5LR.8928.2 of Farmers Ditch has been modified to the point that its remaining features no longer support the eligibility of the entire resource. Section 4(f) Use Packaae A Segment 5LR.8928.1: Under Package A, the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a concrete box culvert would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 5-34 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway improvements would result in temporary occupancy of the ditch.A temporary construction easement may be acquired. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-99 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Segment 5LR.8928.2: The Farmers Ditch segment 5LR.8928.2 runs parallel to the north side of US 34 until it reaches the west frontage road of 1-25, where it flanks the north side of that roadway as an open ditch for several hundred feet. The ditch enters a pipe where it crosses underneath the west frontage road, 1-25, and 1-25 ramps. The ditch remains underground inside a culvert pipe until it daylights at the east frontage road. Under the Package A improvements, direct use of the ditch would occur in four places along this ditch segment. Direct uses would occur at two locations on the west side of 1-25 where this historic ditch parallels the north side of US 34.Approximately 1,225 feet of open ditch west of, and an 1,090-foot- long stretch of open ditch east of Rocky Mountain Avenue lies within the proposed wider US 34 roadway template.The open ditch would be encased inside an underground pipe to allow construction of the wider pavement and side slope. Two direct uses would occur on the east side of 1-25. These include a 115-foot-long portion of open ditch on the northeast quadrant of the I-25/US 34 interchange,which would require the ditch to be encased inside a culvert beneath the proposed new northbound 1-25 on-ramps. A short distance farther to the east, the same ditch flows under US 34 inside a concrete box culvert. Proposed widening of the US 34 roadway in this location would require culvert extensions of approximately 44 feet on the north side of US 34 and 65 feet on the south side (5LR.8928.1)of US 34,totaling 109 feet more open ditch that would be conveyed inside a concrete culvert(see Figure 5-34). Segment 5LR.8928.7: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Ditch segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 would experience temporary construction impacts during culvert installation and highway construction activity. The use of these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,539 linear feet, or 0.48 mile, of open ditch, requiring placement inside underground pipes and box culvert extensions. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment in much of the 1-25/US 34 interchange area has already been compromised by numerous culvert installations, • realignments and other modifications, and no longer supports the qualities that make the entire ditch NRHP-eligible, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transportation improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Package B Segment 5LR.8928.1: Under Package B,the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a concrete box culvert would be conveyed an additional 65 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overly the ditch culvert. Figure 5-35 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction impacts would be the same as Package A. Segment 5LR.8928.2: Package B improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange, as well as US 34 and the Rocky Mountain Avenue intersection,would result in very similar use of the historic Farmers Ditch as Package A. The proposed transportation improvements would result in temporary and direct impacts identical to those associated with Package A. The use of these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,539 linear feet, or 0.48 mile, of open ditch, requiring placement inside underground pipes and box culvert extensions. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package B transportation improvements would result in a no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Preferred Alternative Segment 5LR.8928.1: Under the Preferred Alternative,the Farmers Ditch segment that currently passes underneath US 34 in a CBC would be conveyed an additional 78 feet inside an extended culvert, south of US 34 to allow widening of the US 34 roadway. The new road would overlay the ditch culvert. Figure 5-36 illustrates the US 34 culvert extension. Temporary construction activities associated with installation of new ditch culverts and nearby highway • improvements would result in temporary impacts to the ditch. A temporary construction easement may be acquired. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.100 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Segment 5LR.8928.2: The Farmers' Ditch segment 5LR.8928.2 runs parallel to the north side of US 34 until it reaches the west frontage road of 1-25 where it flanks the north side of that roadway as an open ditch for several hundred feet. The ditch enters a pipe where it crosses underneath the west frontage road, 1-25, and 1-25 ramps. The ditch remains underground, inside a culvert pipe, until it daylights at the east frontage road. Under the Preferred Alternative improvements, uses of the ditch would occur in four places along this ditch segment. Direct use would occur at two locations on the west side of 1-25 where this historic ditch parallels the north side of US 34. Approximately 1,225 feet of open ditch west of, and a 1,090-foot-long stretch of open ditch east of Rocky Mountain Avenue, lies within the proposed wider US 34 roadway template. The open ditch would be encased inside an underground pipe to allow construction of the wider pavement and side slope. Two direct uses would occur on the east side of 1-25.These include a 95-foot-long portion of open ditch on the northeast quadrant of the I-25/US 34 interchange, which would require the ditch to be encased inside a culvert beneath the proposed new northbound 1-25 on-ramps. A short distance farther to the east,the same ditch flows under US 34 inside a CBC. Proposed widening of the US 34 roadway in this location would require culvert extensions of approximately 44 feet on the north side of US 34 and 78 feet on the south side(5LR.8928.1)of US 34, totaling 109 feet more open ditch that would be conveyed inside a concrete culvert(see Figure 5-36). Segment 5LR.8928.7: None of the proposed commuter rail improvements would cause changes to this historic property. Ditch segments 5LR.8928.1 and 5LR.8928.2 would experience temporary construction impacts during culvert installation and highway construction activity. The use of these same segments cumulatively amount to 2,532 linear feet, or 0.48 mile, of open ditch, requiring placement inside underground pipes and • box culvert extensions. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment in much of the I-25/US 34 interchange area has already been compromised by numerous culvert installations, realignments and other modifications, and no longer supports the qualities that make the entire ditch NRHP-eligible, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transportation improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire Farmers Ditch (5LR.8928). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding At the US 34 Interchange, the roadway template has been minimized as much as possible, and has utilized retaining walls throughout the interchange system(i.e., along all ramps, 1-25 and US 34)to avoid and minimize impacts to the Schmer Farm and other environmental resources. It is the least harmful design without lanes and changing the level of service of the interchange system. The interchange design has balanced many system issues to accommodate both highway to regional arterial roadway movements, directly connecting ramps,and accommodating local traffic movements with the least amount of impact not only to environmental resources but also to existing developments in the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants. All possible measures to minimize harm were taken to minimize impacts to other resources surrounding the I-25/US 34 interchange. These resources include McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park in the northwest quadrant,the historic Schmer Farm in the southwest quadrant, as well as wetlands located in all quadrants of the interchange.The wetland complex located in the northeastern quadrant of the interchange is classified as a moderate wetland function and value rating based on its association with an existing waterway, mature riparian zone, and high diversity of vegetative species, which provide food and habitat for various wildlife species. The wetland complexes in the remaining quadrants are comprised of three man-made detention ponds and one emergent wetland complex located adjacent to an irrigation ditch, all of which contain a low wetland function and value rating. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-101 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIII Mitigation Measures for Farmers Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society/standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Figure 5-33 Farmers Ditch Packages A and B Location Map LEGEND ' iiir titer:, �, -- ,z.r.-- 1 Historical Resources _ Package A Resource Impact i.4?• 1 ,i ISO is , I Package A ROW Boundary a•: .ta-•%• 1 n r I 5LR.8928 1 & 5LR.8928.2 Boundaries ' if - I �- - ,, Location Map Boundary le —� Bridge i Cok ed 0-ti_ y = Roadway Features H Retaining wal --_ 5LR.8928.2 - Parcel Boundaries `,� Guardrails --- ri • - - - ~�' •-*. - - _ f :7- - •• , wit _`— - ••�{�{i � f �i r . .,..w . .- w �I I a j! r1 it ' 1 .//r�i4• 1•I a MINI; •' �— e!!r'. ._ ' . st,- _- 'ray++'"` • �� ` I III __i _ mums. . 34 I i - ti. 1 \S i _. s .d IL t tt I: -- / r . . ao Ai N I ., — ' * Co rii , cil LT> ii I I :i F 1r 1- 1'1\1 •I.±1,- ! i, Ir., a �- Location Ma / In - y. Y r 0 700 II=I Feet ''�'�..`-'E?L R: t .. -- - - North SAS ...>.._ . Shy 1, v..4;141. `n. III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-102 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS II information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-34 Farmers Ditch Package A Use LEGEND l Historical Resources i Ir A Package A Resource ImpactA 1 ,1 1 \ '' I Package A ROW Boundary 115 Linear Feet Impacted '� 5LR.8928.1 Property Boundary i ' ,I Package A E0P FS Bridge /Culvert 4 �� i� N. Roadway Features —q Retaining Wall 1 44 Linear Feet Impacted - . Parcel Boundaries `..J Guardrails• s • it . Va, \ titt, . ‘‘. , •:; ' . . , A vir • - 'It*Illiiiii.tilit INII:,‘„ .„,,,,,,. joak, _ �.. _. Lcijj - _ Niiii!spri ' . .' . . _ el . ,...44.744 ....p...._ li +ryi 65 Linear Feet Impacted nt _ 4,0. iii_07 III ,t . 4' i 114,1411Hri ,, ell se i est lir J els is - 1.. ,_ i its va., i , . art at `r �► . ` 1,2251inear Feet Impacted i r : n = r dr.1 l' lei a j l ,. a. . e �� .': .. . _s 34 t _. __ _. I _ salt r _ F'—'7 I ' .,_ lir ... .4. -- itil , . ...., . . * Eillr- • . , ......, ..,. ...... OS us as sit anal it ,. IIIIP 4 fa :' f i - 1,090 Linear Feet Impacted w (.4,LA li _ , .. I . ,., • _ • , ��: : / , A 4 %S, r 411 A- -! tall R -. Location Map _ - SW — J •s """:- n 300 Ali., a 0 . a 4_______I Feet North tea► an) ‘Ira...a_ 0 3, "--- z Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-103 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-35 Farmers Ditch Package B Use a i ar r Ile ti IMO 000 our LEGEND l Iii 1 \ h, i . 1 (' , Historical Resources tPackage B Resource Impact II, J 44 Linear Feet Impacted Package B ROW Boundary t : 5LR.8928 1 Property Boundary �' 1 [ I Package B EOP H Bridge r Culvert ` 115 Linear Feet Impacted Roadway Features E.. Retaining VMll 1 ', , 1 Parcel Boundaries A.A. Guardrails �. \ ctick ,. ,t4---- yitritr , Ili ' . N. • \\AP \ 41\ ��F� � I 25 �� , isaw,,,matiowt„ II II 0,1'1\l•\ \liiiii - - 4. \ -. Al �s - N . _,. ..._. , . . ..i.i. ittietts„ ' / ', ' . , i / \ . -• s- --1 ,...„ ;:.:: ::: - emew 411/ al I I 1 I ' N . '. _ .-.• . Il "" ... CM.' _ - , . sm eflse-IIIMI -we -we44S, I .- - ;sr 1 f - - 65 Linear Feet Impacted 1st4 111‘1\\\Itibk\N\ �II I /.Call .7°H.H7CAIIIIIIMPHIII t__ _ � �. ...h. j... tar , loft se. ID lib • 4", 'Sp At ... Allimilli 41/4%,...r.,- / --11. /a' re, ! 1225 Linear Feet Impacted - ...►- 1 1 11. r' 1.16►. . , '•""_- \ 7-. /l .. - 1 N. oi_ . t 1 1 r ir _ _ _ roc s�� - a Itt 34 rt .� i . w - I• _J� I , Ili. - -- Iii - ` s ',----A- f e g. illin , C Ille , emir pb la 4 trat 47.if �� 1090 Linear Feet Impacted ;all *ID tris-. 4.7 .:"-7‹. 4. �: . .:\.,,,_ . . . , . . ...,, ..... ,. .. _. Ai 1. ri 1 . Safi a t ______. — : - - . - L. Location Map-N, —_ I- 0 300 ant, %ii I 1 Feet North —Aar.. L— - =,��Td -----__ 11 III Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-104 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure5-36 Farmers Ditch Preferred Alternative Use i.[ L ••a ll . r , r ID tS l t LEGEND 1', I A Lass .w \sr ,j Historical Resources 14;17'. ' •`;` i 1 _ Preferred Alternative Resource Impact Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary l 95 Linear Feet Impacted 1 ' 5LR.8928.1 & 5LR.8928.2 Boundaries V Preferred Alternative II-41 Bridge/Culvert `\ f «: • L EOP Roadway Features '--- . Retaining Wall \ ll 177.1 Parcel Boundaries �.a Guardrails i I 44 Linear Feet Impacted ill . fi. . 1 -fill I Ali-.. , , / \\ % ' n- ellt * a ....,400„jumillik.„.„7......../.. . 2� II I/ 14'! ' I _ �_� ^'- �� - am! �.- -�-� .�� - -ii ill ..,-- T. �14� -- �� i -i I a__ Ij , / � ..... ,,,,A C\ 1 \ 78 Linear Feet Impacted \ • i \ \ - \ ! , , , \ ./ . . 7, : ,, _ . . . r f _s . f 1 i' '4 iiii_I - r,. = :t4: '!� /1: " 1,225 Linear Feet Impacted fl �h` ter.), ,* • t. _ : 4 - , - air 1 ti= 1 34-r ,, Sualmeimilim+SarammAL.imiSlie E i �* 1 a...._„ _ _ - t . = ----- / E i'. I _ _ f r t. . . .- — _ `► . t . • . rer • • ` 1' t _`'� t� a �r a / — '' ' - '' 1,090 Linear Feet Impacted " ''��N. ' ; r . i ♦ r / F. 1• 4r .. ♦.� 1 l i A •� -5. ,:�. - HIV{ _,, rI - r'r •� r • I ()cation Map 11 FIN t-A A A A A A A A AAA ♦ A A i 34 il 0 300 - Feet North je\ 1 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-105 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Schmer Farm (5LR.11209) Description Location: 5464 E. US 34 Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect No adverse effect Finding: Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A and C Use of Schmer Farm by Package Package Package A g e B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 6.61 acres of the historic A total of 7.0 acres of the historic farm subject to direct use, including farm subject to direct use, including an approximately 1,800-foot by an approximately 1,800-foot by 124-foot strip(5.09 acres)of 134-foot strip(5.48 acres)of farmland incorporated into new farmland incorporated into new elevated and at-grade ramps, and elevated and at-grade ramps, and 1.52 acres for construction of new 1.52 acres for construction of new access from US 34 to the frontage access from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer road leading to the Schmer farmhouse and businesses on the farmhouse and businesses on the southwest corner of the interchange. southwest corner of the interchange. Preferred Alternative • 1-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 5.48 acres of the historic farm subject to direct use, including a 3.86-acre strip of farmland incorporated into new elevated and at-grade ramps, and 1.52 acres for construction of new access from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse and businesses on the southwest corner of the interchange. Resource Description The Schmer Farm is located at 5464 East US 34 and dates to the early 1900s. The property is a fairly complete example of a Larimer County farm from the turn of the century. The 124-acre farm is operational and includes a well-preserved farmhouse, bam, and outbuildings. Eligibility Determination This historic farm is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A because of its association with early agriculture around the Loveland area, including sugar beet cultivation. It is also NRHP-eligible under Criterion C for containing excellent examples of agricultural architecture. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-106 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Section 4(f) Use Package A This historic farm would be directly used by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package A. Direct uses of the site would occur in two locations, including along the east edge of the site as well as a small area on the northern edge of the property. One direct use would result from the construction of new interchange ramps, including a long curving ramp from westbound US 34 to southbound 1-25, and a new southbound on-ramp from eastbound US 34 on the southwest quadrant of the interchange,which replaces the existing loop ramp. Land acquired from the farm would provide the foundation for support piers for the new elevated flyover ramps between US 34 and I-25. Additionally, land would be acquired from the farm to allow construction of fill slopes used to support the widened highway lanes and near-grade ramps located just west of the existing southbound on-ramp. Farmland acquisition related to construction of these new ramps would use as many as 5.14 acres of land along the east edge of the property.Another small area of direct use would occur west of the farmhouse,where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse,gas station,and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange.A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be used in this location.A total of 6.61 acres of open farmland would be subject to direct use under Package A. No direct impacts to the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under Package A. Indirect effects include the on-ramp,which would bring westbound US 34 traffic directly to southbound I-25.It would be elevated 30 feet higher than the existing highway feature in the area and introduce an additional transportation element into the setting of the Schmer Farm. Transportation features have been part of the rural atmosphere and setting of the Schmer Farm since the 1960s,when I-25 and US 34 were completed. • The new indirect effects to the farm setting would not substantially impair the function, setting, or architectural qualities that render the farm NRHP-eligible.The farm would remain operational and would be protected from encroachment during construction. Because the transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-37 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Uses resulting from Package B transportation improvements are similar in nature to those expected under Package A. This historic farm would be directly impacted by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with Package B. Use of the site would be slightly more than in Package A because of the additional managed lanes on 1-25,creating a slightly wider highway footprint. Farmland acquisition related to construction of these new ramps would create use of 5.48 acres of land along the east edge of the property.Another small area of direct use would occur west of the farmhouse,where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse,gas station, and hotel on the southwest corner of the interchange.A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be used in this location. A total of 7.0 acres of open farmland would be subject to direct use under Package B. No use of the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under Package B. Indirect effects would be the same as Package A. Because the transportation improvements associated with Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-38 for uses associated with Package B. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-107 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Preferred Alternative This historic farm would be used by proposed improvements to the I-25/US 34 interchange associated with the Preferred Alternative. Use of the site would result from the construction of new interchange ramps, including long curving, elevated ramps from westbound US 34 to southbound 1-25, and a new southbound on- ramp from eastbound US 34 on the southwest quadrant of the interchange, replacing the existing loop ramp. Land taken from the farm would be necessary to provide a foundation for support piers for the new elevated flyover ramps between US 34 and 1-25. Additionally, land would be needed from the farm to allow construction of fill slopes used to support the widened highway lanes and near-grade ramps, located just west of the existing southbound on-ramp. Construction of these new ramps would create use of as many as 3.86 acres of land along the east edge of the property.Another small area of direct use would occur west of the farmhouse, where a new access would be constructed from US 34 to the frontage road leading to the Schmer farmhouse, gas station, and hotel on the southwest comer of the interchange. A total of 1.52 acres of farmland would be used in this location.A total of 5.38 acres of open farmland would be subject to use under the Preferred Alternative. No use of the historic farm building complex along US 34 would occur under the Preferred Alternative(see Figure 5-39). FHWA and CDOT have determined that the loss of an additional 5.38 acres of land for construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to this farm because the characteristics that define the integrity of the rural landscape would not be compromised. The location,design, materials and workmanship of the farm would remain the same. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any of the farm buildings. The setting would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative. The mountains to the west of the farm continue to be a key element of its historic setting. The setting of the land to the north of the Schmer farm has changed significantly. What was once all agricultural land has been developed over the last decades into commercial development with the Loveland Outlet Stores and other retail businesses directly north of the Schmer Farm and the large Promenade Shops at Centerra to the northeast of the farm. The highways on both the north and east have been there for over forty years and were a part of the setting when the property was determined • eligible for the NRHP.The feeling would remain one of an active farm established in the early part of the 20th century. The association is still strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. The Schmer Farm was determined eligible under Criterion A for its association with 20th century Loveland area farming, including its history of sugar beet growing. That association would not change as a result of this project. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A.B. and Preferred Alternative Options to the directional interchange mainline ramps to identify alignment and measures to minimize harm have been evaluated. Traffic analysis indicated that there was some flexibility in phasing the directional ramp improvements to address the movements that are critical to maintaining the operational capacity of the diamond interchange at I-25/US 34. The eastbound-to-northbound flyover ramp would likely have required the removal of the Schmer Farm buildings on the south side of US 34. The original design also involved an on- ramp to southbound I-25 departing from the elevated US 34 flyover that would have caused direct use of the east edge of the Schmer Farm. It was confirmed that the eastbound-to-northbound directional ramp could be eliminated and an adequate level-of-service for 2035 traffic volumes could still be provided.As such, this modified design is serving as a measure to minimize harm for this property. This would result in a$40 million cost reduction. Mitigation Measures for Schmer Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Work with SHPO during final design to formulate acceptable aesthetic treatment of highway ramps and flyways(facades, pier treatments, elevation changes, landscaping, etc.). • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during • construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-108 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5 37 Schmer Farm Package A Use .3. _ cri 1t,._ "ill LEGEND i . I., ,Historical Resources ��,` _r I t t Package A Resource Impact i. t ...,.;r,,r, r 4 • ' Package A ROW Boundary "`a''�f 'era ' :r I 4 5LR.11209 Property Boundary "mi ` ^ r , ► f Package A EOP At H Budge Guardrab. ils k'-7 Roadway Features ■� Retaining Wall • b. . _' . -,n ..1 Parce► Boundaries " Guardrails ii, • - i p fill \-'1• -- _' . .. 1 . ,iiii =� - - - - =_ — -- 111 Illi._ • ._ ;. .. .. N. i* ,iIc �1s . ._ , • i Area = 66.34/ Sq. Ft \\* hit Il\ . f jj Acres = 1 .52 ' \ l / l 0 ! iL if t1Ii 4 JJ I III Ii it jA4 ej ---'s-, • • I• 6 ' Area = 221,661 Sq. ft ` Acres = 5.09 � ' H i i- . 174, . te ;;c 7 tip a z ' r 1 ' ' � r` Indirect effect to farm setting caused by elevated ramp structures. )— I ( Ramps would be at least 30 feetII 'I . ' ,,�I. higher than existing roadways.Oral, - ri lialt 47.P.: :1 it.t 1Lr tr .. _r Location Map'' ) Itr�NI I '`� _ . . .. .. ` :. t,,�„g "' • IIIlnll hill l l' I71 / __ __ -t . E LCR 20E 1, 114!'DO:/ 1 �J 400 R 1 Feet North it ,xII �LIII!1i , IIINote: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-109 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. Ill Figure 5-38 Schmer Farm Package B Use LEGEND - S _. ... t ".� 1 �. Historical Resources 4,1 = r} 1 y �' lPackage B Resource Impact tiir it ,.... , ta '; ' �y I Package B ROW Boundary I - 4 • w..... 1 1,i.' '� 5LR. 11209 Property Boundary �'4-�� I lib -_�` : I • � /ft ' \ 11 Package B EOP H Bndge Guardrails r�_ !'r I X ILA III \ !Ii �---�r Roadway Features f.. Retaining Wall it '2 `• ' - °"r `'' J`"' '-` I i I 1 I i-• t ,, 1 -77111 Parcel Boundanes L..J Guardrails �..` �" t ---7-7—MOMWe' ..... .. 1 ' 1 ' il ' !11111K' ( .r .- • • . I I r i . _ - ;,1!, _ , n ¢ati 4111. I I 1 �/ ' , .. - Iill I ' Area = 66,302 Sq. Ft f I \ 11 Acres = 1.52 I � i 1 III " 0 I . I! ,I I1 r I ii + I , i � IIl! I l I I i I f1 i . �` , NI III Area = 238,569 Sq. Ft I I I I Acres - 5.48 i : ' II ; ' ' h mit I I p ,ii I r -.7- tf Indirect effect to farm setting caused by l I I I df ; I I► elevated ramp structures. f ,a �.•/ I Ramps would be at least 30 feet higher I I I . I t ,,,/ than existing roadways. N .` L F. 1214 _ ,4, II1f ,I { I + ��, • II ocation Map - F:. liehassessir r ' - -- - - alu _ I - E LCR nCac Illut � lii it 400 • `J -- I�� I Feet North �� • r- Ili■� ��1� i �►.� a 'It! i'II III It , Note: E0P—Edge of Pavement 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-110 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-39 Schroer Farm Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND • c j` 4- _ >'+,>•' -- ', r I' ! Historical Resources • r— s .x, - " r :, ! ` -- - .. Preferred Alternative Resource Impact C ' Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary ,.s. ~ -. -- t�' , II . j\\I I5LR.11209 Property Boundary r. -- / ; - t ' , li Preferred Alternative �� Bndge Guardrails ` EOP I Roadway Features F . Retaining Wall - e le ii •.. bail Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails -- ill II n. .11.. 10 ,.., ...., , . . _ II . _ -- ____------ --__ _.--= ==. = =. =7"--..z.—.7_________ •%'.4\c\.7.:,.:.i.7. li 7._ _ litilrliA34 ________, / ' Ily.i . i. " ...'.. ...'"."'. 1illiyo . III It la i - I Ili ..` ., ai.,,.....,:iiiiit, h ../ , . I I - kJ' ki•-* - - I - ,A*1 -,,,\, , I. i. It - ; ,Area = 66,312 Sq. Ft Acres = 1.52 ,I l/ it III 4, b If ii I r,1 1 I Il Ii i 1 11 . i p +i i �t, T I I u l '� • I I ' I I 't Area = 168,203 Sq. Ft jI t 1 V' L. Acres = 3.86 I i 4 if 1-Iti` `- �: �� - ` , = i Indirect effect to farm setting caused b I � lig elevated ramp structures J j' : i ; ' Ramps would be at least 30 feet higher I J; III+ ! I than existing roadways. i I� • - 4 i 25 11 1 �� I r ' ,� ` III . Location Map—; s_ - '' i I Ili' �I - . r IIIIIIC;IIII�IRi j i 0 400 i ' I Feet North 11 • '- 1 I1•=1. IllIui!IIIIIII&. S Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-111 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • McDonough Farm (5LR.11210) Description Location: 4856 E. Highway 34, Loveland Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion C Use of McDonough Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 1.64 acres by incorporation of A total of 1.64 acres by incorporation a thin strip of farmland adjacent to of a thin strip of farmland adjacent to US 34 US 34 Preferred Alternative Highway: A total of 1.64 acres by incorporation of a thin strip of farmland adjacent to US 34. Resource Description • This property is located east of Loveland on the south side of US 34 approximately one mile west of I-25. The farm is historically important because of the architectural significance of its barn. The barn is a good example of early 20th century barn architecture in the Loveland and Larimer County area. The farm still continues in production and the barn continues to convey significance under Criterion C. Eligibility Determination In August 2006, the McDonough Farm was determined officially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion C because of the architectural significance of its barn. Section 4(f) Use Packaoe A The use associated with Package A would occur along the northern edge of the farm adjacent to US 34 where 1.64 acres of land would be acquired in a thin strip of land along portions of the north and east borders of the farm. It appears that a pumphouse adjacent to US 34 would be removed. On the 2006 survey of this property,the pumphouse was evaluated as not unique, utilitarian in nature, and not adequately representing the architecture typically associated with Loveland area farms during the first half of the 20th century. This farm would remain a working farm whose barn conveys significance under Criterion C. The barn and other farm buildings would not be directly affected,agricultural production would continue and the barn would continue to convey architectural significance. See Figure 5-40 for uses associated with Package A. The material,workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not be affected by a use of land from the site. Due to the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-112 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Package B The impacts associated with Package B are identical to those described under Package A. This farm would remain a working farm whose barn conveys significance under Criterion C. The barn and other farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the barn would continue to convey architectural significance.The material,workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not be affected by a loss of land from the site. Due to the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. See Figure 5-40 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative The impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur along the northern edge of the farm adjacent to US 34 where 1.64 acres would be removed in a thin strip of land along portions of the north and east borders of the farm. It appears that a pumphouse adjacent to US 34 would be removed. On the 2006 survey of this property, the pumphouse was evaluated as not unique, utilitarian in nature, and not adequately representing the architecture typically associated with Loveland area farms during the first half of the 20th century. This farm would remain a working farm whose barn conveys significance under Criterion C. The barn and other farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the bam would continue to convey architectural significance. See Figure 5-40 for uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. The material, workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not be affected by a loss of land from the site. Due to the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A.B. &Preferred Alternative • The farm is located directly adjacent to US 34 just west I-25. The US 34/1-25 interchange has been designed to accommodate major movements between these regional facilities as well as accommodate safe and efficient local system traffic. Previous interchange design configurations were much wider and would have used a greater area of McDonough Farm. The US 34/1-25 interchange is the most compact design possible to minimize right-of-way acquisition. Retaining walls have been included to minimize direct impacts. Impacts caused by expansion of US 34 would result from the new overpass. Because of the overpass height, the toe slopes would have a longer reach into the farm property. Mitigation Measures for the McDonough Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-113 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportationIII Figure 5-40 McDonough Farm Use . . LEGEND wr' �, �isic 's_lisp sir: - l • ,. Historical R uresl -lrr41.• , 4 io'st ,•,,:.'+ -. J ; , ; - Pr+�rkrrwd A►ternrinvs Rw4Q4nca Irrpwn ♦ lh r• at _ Made Preened Alkrrulhr ROW tkuMary .� =.�..o- 5i.R.11210 Prcpa cy Bwrd•iry ��—ellialle 7�■""i- w � 1 . , Prelr•nd Ai$undr.. W C`� �� 'd9r Grnrdr■d w t. It R ativ yr Fea11r s �� Rrtr,nsy 11Y1 ' ass 'Cr S.1 I ' - 1J II Pul rr Bouu b � urn + Gurlikta , _ > • r r J - - • • .R m i. 6+ "[ •s _t am' ..n . c-)awl - I sa s.lrt " , r. • 1 i is L.....1v�Yr r , r .•-- A. sr / - 1 j •. _- S rim _.: . , _ 0- 4. • 1, - •1 ." • • 1: • 1 • :isaisoi. • .kr! i im• -• - a ' ' ' • ina 4>. ma Jr • II,,, 0 ,- - • 1 I,. 4 tr .1.••• , , t, . •1r •.r �,1 ♦T }' I - _ __ ,• .''i1 ' 1 11 — - _ ,�- y,sigg •Ili _A . . ; %, • 1 1 Area = 71 ,505 Std. Ft i Acres • t54 Acres ` - r,. - • i ,_ : ‘ , _ ; 114,__ _ 4 i ,n us i-, , ; ; ; . i . , . , IlbAi ti a + r r ' 1, . .... it � ommieteR + . - , ) , . r . . . . .. 41,-... , in • ate— it dhlit j _ . n�1�1 I Feet 14nF! h . ear � 2 11 1 III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-114 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Great Western Railway (5LR.850) Description Location: T5N/R68W, C Sec, 15 Type: Historic railroad Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Great Western Railway by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 170 feet of railroad length A total of 240 feet of railroad length incorporated into a new bridge incorporated into a new bridge Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 155 feet of railroad length incorporated into a new bridge. Resource Description The total length of the entire historic Great Western Railway(GWR)is 110 miles. Six segments of the GWR resource in Larimer, Weld, and Boulder counties pass through the North 1-25 EIS APE. The 15.7-mile-long GWR Loveland to Buda section (5LR850)was built in 1902 to 1903 by the • Loveland Construction Company and contains Larimer County segments 5LR.850.1 and 5LR.850.5, as well as Weld County segment 5WL.841.11. Segment 5LR.850.1 is approximately 1,241 feet long. The GWR is conveyed over 1-25 in this portion of the APE by a non-historic bridge. Segment 5LR.850.5 is approximately 551 feet long. Segment 5WL.841.11 is the first end-of-track point for the Loveland to Buda section, and the portion within the project APE is 784 feet long. The GWR Johnstown to Liberty section was built in 1905 to 1906 and is 12 miles long. Within the APE in Weld and Boulder counties, this section contains segments 5WL.841.9 and 5BL.841.1. Segment 5WL.841.9 is 1,241 feet long, and Segment 5WL.841.1 is 784 feet long. The Boulder County segment(5BL.514.1)of the GWR Johnstown to Longmont section was constructed in 1903 and is approximately 2.1 miles long. Eligibility Determination The entire GWR in Larimer County(5LR.850), Weld County(5WL841),and Boulder County (58L.514), is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important role in the economic development of the Colorado Front Range. All of the segments passing through the APE (5LR.850.1, 5LR.850.5, 5WL.841.11, 5WL.841.9, 5WL.841.1, and 5BL.514.1)retain sufficient integrity of location and association to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource; however, those portions of the railroad spanning 1-25 have been modified and have lost integrity of design and workmanship by being placed on a bridge during the 1960s. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-115 Final EIS NORTH 127 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Section 4(f) Use Package A Segment 5LR.850.1: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a non-historic 210-foot- long steel girder railroad bridge. Package A involves the widening of I-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing three general purpose lanes in each direction, or a total of six traffic lanes. To accommodate this wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over 1-25 with a 295-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 85 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge In order to replace the existing bridge with a longer structure, it would be necessary to construct a temporary"shoo-fly"structure,whereby a section of railroad would be temporarily re-aligned to cross 1-25 on the north side of the existing railroad bridge. This measure would prevent a disruption in rail service,while the old bridge is demolished and the new bridge structure is being constructed in its place.A new rail crossing would be constructed north of the existing bridge. The shoo-fly structure would require altering the existing historic railroad grade at either end of the existing bridge (approximately 85 feet at each end to provide a smooth transition to the new alignment), curving to form the bypass of the existing bridge. Once the latter step has been completed, the shoo-fly would be removed, and rail traffic would be restored to its historic east-west alignment. The bridge replacement under Package A would place an additional 85 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of I-25 on a bridge, only 170 feet of the railroad retaining good • physical integrity would be used by placement on a longer bridge structure.The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans 1-25,and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP (see Figure 5-41). Segment 5WL.841.11: In this location,the existing I-25 northbound and southbound roadways span this historic railroad with twin 82-foot-long, 38-foot-wide concrete slab bridges (C-17-CE and C-17-CD). Neither bridge is historic. Under Package A, the northbound and southbound roadways would be realigned to the west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures that would be approximately 24 feet wider and 79 feet long. The old bridges would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway so that no direct use would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained. Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting.A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and regrade slopes within the railroad right- of-way and would result in a temporary occupancy. Segment 5LR.850.5: This rail line would remain in its current historic alignment and would continue to tie into the railroad mainline corridor west of Cleveland Avenue that would contain the proposed commuter rail line. No direct use of the historic railroad ballast, bed, and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not to be expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-116 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Segment 5WL.841.9: Under Package A, the 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be widened from two lanes to three general purpose lanes in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures that would be 82 feet long and 63 to 75 feet wide. The old (but non-historic) 103-foot long, 38-foot wide rolled I-beam bridges(D-17-DB and D-17-DA)which spanned the railroad would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so that no direct use would occur. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges, thus the railroad would have an additional 62 feet of overhead cover. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained. Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting.A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right- of-way and would result in a temporary occupancy. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the highway bridges. This increased overhead cover due to the new bridge decks would not result in a direct use. Segment 5BL.514.1: The commuter rail improvements in this area call for the addition of a dedicated commuter rail track parallel to the existing commercial railroad track. In all cases the existing rail line would remain in its current historic alignment. No use of the historic railroad ballast, bed, and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent set of tracks supporting the new commuter rail line would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but that is not expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. • Approximately 170 feet of railroad track at Segment 5LR.850.1 would experience a direct use as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction occupancy and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). New commuter rail track along the transportation corridor would contribute to modern but compatible rail infrastructural elements to the historic setting at two locations(5BL.514.1 and 5LR.850.5). Because the use of these segments associated with the proposed Package A transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer,Weld, and Boulder counties(5LR.850, 5WL.841, and 5BL.514). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-41 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Segment 5LR.850.1: Presently,this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a(non-historic) 210-foot-long steel girder railroad bridge. Package B involves widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes to a new section containing a total of eight lanes: two managed lanes plus two general purpose lanes in each direction. To accommodate this much wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over 1-25 with a 330-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 120 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical height as the existing railroad bridge. Similar to Package A, construction of a shoo-fly would be needed during construction. The bridge replacement under Package B would place an additional 240 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure relatively similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of 1-25 on a bridge, 240 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new • bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans 1-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-117 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Segment 5WL.841.11: Under Package B, this section of 1-25 is in the transition zone between a highway section containing two general purpose lanes with one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction, to a wider section containing two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction.The northbound and southbound roadways would be realigned to the west of their current alignments, and these new roadways would span the historic railway on two new pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures similar to those proposed for Package A that would be approximately 70 feet wider and 79 feet long. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct use would occur. The old bridges would be demolished. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained, and no direct use would result. Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting. However, the new bridges would place an additional 140-foot-long portion of the railway underneath the new bridge decks. This increased overhead cover due to the wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however, this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Segment 5WL.841.9: Under Package B, the northbound and southbound roadways would be re- aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing two general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadway alignments would span the historic railway on new 82-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges,thus the railroads would have an additional 62 feet of overhead cover. The bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, and no direct use would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained. • Removing the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting.A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and regrade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place an additional portion of the railway underneath the bridge deck. This increased overhead cover due to the wider bridge deck would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however;this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Approximately 240 feet of railroad track at Segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction occupancy and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad(5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). Because the impacts to these segments associated with the proposed Package B transportation improvements would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer and Weld counties(5LR.850 and 5WL.841). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5.42 for uses associated with Package B Preferred Alternative Segment 5LR.850.1: Presently, this historic railroad segment spans 1-25 via a non-historic 210-foot- long steel girder railroad bridge.The Preferred Alternative involves the widening of 1-25 through this area, changing it from the existing configuration of two northbound and two southbound traffic lanes, to a new section containing three general purpose lanes and one TEL in each direction or a total of eight traffic lanes. To accommodate this wider section, it would be necessary to replace the existing bridge carrying the GWR over 1-25 with a 295-foot-long bridge structure. The new bridge would be 85 feet longer than the existing structure spanning 1-25. The proposed new bridge would be either of post-tensioned concrete or steel plate girder construction, and would remain at the same vertical • height as the existing railroad bridge (see Figure 5-43). Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-118 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. To replace the existing bridge with a longer structure, it would be necessary to construct a temporary "shoo-fly"structure, whereby a section of railroad would be temporarily re-aligned to cross I-25 on the north side of the existing railroad bridge. This measure would prevent a disruption in rail service, while the old bridge is demolished and the new bridge structure is being constructed in its place.A new rail crossing would be constructed north of the existing bridge. The shoo-fly structure would require altering the existing historic railroad grade at either end of the existing bridge(approximately 70 feet on the west end and 85 feet at the east end to provide a smooth transition to the new alignment), curving to form the bypass of the existing bridge. Once the latter step has been completed,the shoo-fly would be removed, and rail traffic would be restored to its historic east-west alignment. The bridge replacement under the Preferred Alternative would place an additional 85 feet of historic railroad line on a bridge structure similar to its current configuration. By placing that portion of the railroad already modified by the original construction of 1-25 on a bridge, only 85 feet of the railroad retaining good physical integrity would be altered by placement on a longer bridge structure. The new bridge would be similar in terms of elevation and the location where it spans I-25, and thus would not introduce a new and different visual element into the railroad's setting. This change would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render it eligible for the NRHP Segment 5WL.841.11: At this location,the existing I-25 northbound and southbound roadways span this historic railroad with twin 82-foot-long, 38-foot-wide concrete slab bridges. Neither bridge is historic. Under the Preferred Alternative,the northbound and southbound roadways would be re- aligned to the west of their current alignments, and would be wider, containing three general purpose lanes and a TEL in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new, approximately 24-foot-wide, 79-foot-long pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old bridges would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed • outside the limits of this historic railway, so that no direct impacts would occur. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing would be maintained (see Figure 5-43) Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway setting.A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right- of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway undemeath the bridge deck. This increased 48 feet of overhead cover due to a wider bridge decks would be an indirect effect to the historic setting of the railway; however,would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Segment 5LR.850.5: This rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment, and would continue to tie into the railroad mainline corridor west of Cleveland Avenue that would contain the proposed commuter rail line. No use of the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The installation of an adjacent passing track would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not to be expected to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. Segment 5WL.841.9: Under the Preferred Alternative,the 1-25 northbound and southbound roadways would be re-aligned approximately 50 to 60 feet west of their current alignments,and would be widened from 2-through lanes to three general purpose lanes and TEL in each direction. The new northbound and southbound roadways would span the historic railway on new 82-foot-long, 63-to 75-foot-wide, pre-stressed concrete girder-type bridge structures. The old (but non-historic) 103-foot-long, 38-foot-wide, rolled I-beam bridges, which spanned the railroad, would be demolished. The new bridge piers would be placed outside the limits of this historic railway, so no direct impacts would occur. The two new bridges would be a combined 62 feet wider than the existing bridges,thus the railroad would have 62 feet more overhead cover. The existing east frontage road would be slightly widened but would remain in its existing alignment, and the existing at-grade railroad crossing • would be maintained (see Figure 5-43). Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-119 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Removal of the old bridges and returning most of the associated fill slopes to a more natural terrain shape and elevation would partially restore the historic landscape of the railway's setting.A temporary construction easement would be necessary to demolish and re-grade slopes within the railroad right-of-way. The new bridges would place a portion of the railway underneath the highway bridges.This increased overhead cover due to the new bridge decks would indirectly affect the historic setting of the railway, however; this change is not expected to substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the railway NRHP-eligible. Segment 5BL.514.1: The commuter rail improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative in this area call for the commuter rail to run on the existing freight railroad track. The existing rail line would remain in its current, historic alignment. No use of the historic railroad ballast, bed and track would occur. The addition of the commuter rail would indirectly affect the historic setting of the historic railroad line, but would not expect to substantially harm the function, alignment, character, or attributes that render the railroad NRHP-eligible. 155 feet of railroad track at segment 5LR.850.1 would be directly impacted as a result of new bridge construction. Temporary construction impacts and indirect effects due to expanded overhead coverage by the highway bridges would affect two segments of the railroad (5WL.841.11 and 5WL.841.9). Commuter rail traffic. along the transportation corridor would contribute to modern, but compatible rail elements to the historic setting at two localities(5BL.514.1 and 5LR.850.5). The impacts to these segments associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish the integrity of the resource or the characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect with respect to the entire GWR in Larimer, Weld and Boulder counties (5LR.850, 5WL.841, and 5BL.514). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-43 for uses associated with the Preferred Alternative Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding • Package A. B. and Preferred Alternative The bridge for Package A cannot be reduced in length because a retaining abutment that is the minimum distance allowed from the edge of 1-25 is already included in the design. All measures to reduce impact have been considered. Mitigation Measures for the Great Western Railway • Permanent easements or acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain rail operations during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-120 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Figure information. cooperation transportation. 5-41 Great Western Railway Package A Use i1 !l .,t LEGEND ra j -•40 . Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact I Package A ROW Boundary t ' ' �. . 5LR.850 1 Property Boundary .r.,Package A EOP - Bridge / Culvert , 25 i Roachvay Features E.. Retaining VVall • 41 I , Parcel Boundaries `J Guardrails I I V keri -- . Li4ig ti ' . � 1 I ~ ' N i 1 t irT__ _1 Ri el r Location of existing bridges . �j „; �f, .i I. • ' 1 AP _at-_ _ * G bw , ,; .A. ' . . . 1 ' i I . Nadi dl 4,'.,,P ! lj is, w ,. 4 ... it" • 0 rEICIV20E '44 - it-JMIIII • - • MI ..1+ a" . a is R I 1 IJ r '. 7 - 1 . • , .� • • S .• ~ i •• 85 Linear Feet Impacted 85 Linear Feet Impacted L. , . - • 0 • `, • ( . e I. AC, e • r •t .1 i t . • rv . let i ti • I 1 . New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the i so- railway. / 1 To construct the new bridges, a 'shoo-fly" structure , • . would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the . • • ' ja-ir-ii { Ilf { . north side of the exsting bridges. . t ..M. s I The track impacted by this "shoo-fly" are indicated in red i ra • . ., rrir... ..7_ _ _ .. ...., iii . . il :: ..)t...... :r " ' + 4 • - Y \ ,/ .. ' i' 'A. , . it . Li . r Location Map - P 1 i 0 200 1 i • - . > v . • , ` _. I I Feet North t'' t -� AA till PI ".1‘k r. ► ' • Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-121 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-42 Great Western Railway Package B Use I LEGEND ti Historical Resources p Package B Resource Impact ' Package B ROW Boundary 5LR.850 1 Property Boundary ~ Package B EOP ■1 Bridge / Culvert I i / } �� h - f' ' Roadway Features ..■ Retaining wall ,, — ' IParcel Boundaries `A Guardrails • r IN I Nolti ` . m +‘ . r —_._'_.-‘1111 ' } . 101 , . i .I , • •1 I ■ ; 1 ,,, , • I ■ 1 • ,: i r Location of existing bridges 1 it _ ., ii Ir , ■ i - I . r - fi III , 4 . ---1 .:: ' • , ! , , 1 . ,.. • ..2 .. . .......a - III . ast. . - , 1 ' . .if g. I , . Tr sii- , . . f: • li h' l' ' , i. ; il .. . .-- v ; 144.107.7 i 4 li "- I I ill ' 120 linear Feet Impacted 120 Linear Feet Impacted f- _ ; isi :� `' ail` fet I 11 1 sail ' • l I . it / • i l New bridges would replace the existing bridges over the I P - railway. •.C' • '*e0 pE_s To construct the new bridges, a "shoo-fly' structure i. .. • - would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the mu_ 1 al , north side of the exsting bridges. . • * The track impacted by this 'shoo-fly' are indicated in red, ' •i 1 s. i i 4 t . , / 1 A , , , . . , r° - 1 location Map 4 ■ lz.. _ -A ; - . . Pr Ii j IN 200 i. �i Feet ■ N th fig. _- - �.- _ l MilI , -, III Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-122 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-43 Great Western Railway Preferred Alternative Use — i , p P I I . i yi . i , LEGEND Historical Resources • Preferred Alternative Resource Impact • I {Ii �, Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary P I yr, N t 5LR.850.1 Resource Boundary I I ' � ! f Preferred Alternative ... Bridge /Culver( �� EOP . + _ I. .. Roadway Features F� Retaining Wall F i = Parcel Boundaries 46,_.,& Guardrails ' I I 1 1 i 4 M I ' 4 t I1 i I L — • *-Y.1i Ii I - � — � lei► �- '• ll Ii 1 i O.,_ I ( I • I Location of existing bridges II - — - r. - - \I II I ' Ivier - ,I N I , In - II .. . . i- _ _. IL !IIflIUIfluIlU• -• f ..„,Thio b _sr 2 Jr— _ r .. .�ri I is - 14 . I I I I I r ' M..• a � 'r =f 70 linear Feet Impacted 1, ` 85 Linear Feet Impacted is I' ! e ill ' riA i. k If-- , i,11 I li 11. i r r ll ' st:. Willis- I lel ilira I i . . re , . 1 , ✓ (' s t ' ssiiY • , . may J 1 1 , At . ' I A new budge would replace existing railway bridge over t , 111 �' . . i1 l-25. .,L-- .r - - F _ �i�' : i r i•I ® I I f A - ' To construct the new bridge, a 'shoo-fly' structure _ if��_ t • would be installed to temporarily realign the track on the lipo' .1* - , a Yom• • i north side of the existing bridge. r_ tl • 1 fI ` wt's . Irair 'VW - I, is ;1101% 1 i . . , l ()cation Map. P...2' . ' r I Of 1r �- 0 200 th .. ,... /.. _ .,,, _ Feet North �I�!'! lint litT s " 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-123 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Hatch Farm (5LR.11382) Description Location: 640 Southeast Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion C Use of Hatch Farm by Package Package Package A g e B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 2.1 acres by incorporation of A total of 2.2 acres by incorporation of narrow 850-foot and 450-foot strips of narrow 850-foot and 450-foot strips of farmland for two water quality ponds in farmland for two water quality ponds in the project the project Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 1.33 acres by incorporated into the transportation infrastructure Resource Description The Hatch Farm is located at 640 Southeast Frontage Road in Larimer County. This property includes a historic balloon-framed barn, which is unique for this area. The barn was constructed circa 1920. The barn • is surrounded by farmland. Eligibility Determination The significance of the Hatch Farm is attributed to the architecture of the barn. The barn retains very good architectural integrity, is an excellent example of a specialized type and construction method of agricultural architecture, and has been determined to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Section 4(f) Use Package A Under Package A,the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be changed from the existing two general purpose lanes in each direction, to a wider footprint containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment approximately 50 feet east of its current edge of pavement. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, Package A design includes construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic property. Ponds in this area were placed to avoid wetlands and Section 4(f)-protected parkland along the Big Thompson River. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 300 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 0.9 acre in size. The southernmost pond would extend approximately 104 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 1.2 acres in size. Together, these ponds would use approximately 2.1 acres of land within the site boundary. The proposed water quality ponds would be visually unobtrusive. Because the historic barn would not be directly used by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package A would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-44 for uses associated with Package A. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-124 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Package B Under Package B,the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be altered to include two general purpose lanes and two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment approximately 65 feet east of the current edge of pavement. In conjunction with these transportation improvements, the Package B design specifies the construction of two water quality ponds on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic site. The northernmost water quality pond would extend nearly 286 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 0.87 acre in size. The southemmost pond would extend approximately 91 feet into the historic property and would occupy an area approximately 1.33 acres in size.Together, these ponds would use approximately 2.2 acres of land within the site boundary. Because the historic bam on the Hatch Farm property would not be directly used by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with Package B would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-45 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative,the existing 1-25 template in this vicinity would be changed from the existing two general purpose lanes in each direction, to a wider footprint containing three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be shifted to the east of its present alignment. In conjunction with these transportation improvements,the Preferred Alternative design calls for the construction of a water quality pond on the east side of 1-25, extending into this historic property. The pond was placed in this area to avoid wetlands and Section 4(f)protected parkland along the • Big Thompson River. The pond would extend approximately 104 feet into the historic property, and would occupy an area approximately 1.18 acres in size. Together, this pond and the widened footprint of the transportation infrastructure would impact approximately 1.33 acres of land within the site boundary(see Figure 5-46). The planned ROW allows for a 10-foot-wide, continuous maintenance easement along the retaining walls and southern basin,which can be accessed from the unpaved county road. Very little of the original 160-acre farm is still used for agriculture. There are no farm buildings on the Hatch property except for the barn and that no longer has any association with agriculture. Mr. Hatch said that his 8-acre parcel has not been used as cropland since the 1940s. It was used as a wrecking yard in the 1950s. The Big Thompson River flows through the northern portion of the original farm. The property has been divided and sold and is now in a variety of uses. There is a campground on 12 acres in the northwest part of the original farm. Mr. Hatch has 8 acres with about 4 acres used for his trucking business and the other 4 acres used for residential uses. The land to the south of the Big Thompson River has been a large gravel pit for the last 15 years.The only remaining agricultural use of the land is for pasture on the land surrounding the gravel pit operation. The barn is eligible under Criterion C, but the site has lost integrity in terms of setting as the there are no other buildings on site that were associated with agricultural uses. The proposed water quality pond would be visually unobtrusive. The historic barn would not be directly or indirectly affected by development of these water quality ponds, and the transportation-related improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not diminish or alter architectural characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. The loss of the land from the site is not adverse because the setting and feeling of this property have been changed with the development of the campground,the service garage,the trucking business and the gradual reduction of agricultural use of the property. The approximate 1.33 acres of land that would be taken for this project is mainly vacant land with some portions of the land being used as an area to park trucks for the trucking business.The barn was not used for agricultural purposes on this property. The association for this property is now commercial rather than agricultural. The material, workmanship, location and design of the barn would retain integrity and not • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-125 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • be affected by a loss of land from the site. Due to the prior loss of the agricultural setting of this property and the fact that there would be no direct impact to the barn which is the reason for the property's eligibility, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A, B. and Preferred Alternative No minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures are currently possible because of the requirement of locating water quality ponds on the east side of 1-25 while avoiding uses of the Big Thompson riparian corridor and wetlands. All measures to reduce impact have been considered. Mitigation Measures for the Hatch Farm • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-126 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-44 Hatch Farm Package A Use g g _.. a a aa..a.a."...— I e., • e LEGEND ' • Historical Resources - _ r alPackage A Resource Impact / - P Package A ROW Boundary r' ea. w it A 5LR.11382 Property Boundary � Guardrails t Package A EOP HBridge . `. - Roadway Features I.—. Retaining Wall t . I . Guardrails r • Parcel Boundaries �J Li f E LCR 20E ► ' t i '* ' ;. . „ . •'Ads 111 f r ....._ '►� • ' 1 . ,\ I i 0, it 21# iii r a'ra l"y #16plii y: -- ® ( , r L t �, to !, 'tart ' i a r a. Sty?. lit 4?SSE \\ III a , est ' ' - .4-4 _losi iii 440,,,*440,,,*4 .14,4 __ -. . , ". • . s. , lor 0 ,. ,1/4: lila t i ♦ .rf 4 ... i . . p tt Tr ,, _ " A4 •` Mi 4 4' r II r /` Area = 39,096 Sq. Ft , / Acres = 0.9 I —1 . .0 ,. i . . T, a 4 ' 1 `..... • ..• ,.... - {• de • .t� - ra ~ ' • - • ;{ 7l• 1' r-t • t rt . . , Jai .. ...7 � ', Area = 52292S . Ft .f , • -. .. r 1 q ry i i . . - - . , Acres = 1 .2 . t fit , i i la 4. :j I ‘1., , 1 } • M' ill , " r �r �! I Ir r r- fJ 1 'a . A. It. • $ •J .. „ Location Map r --.el. -IIIIMPIllf. • rn� r� r I `i A 7\1 . • r 0 31°Feet I eI North I • T III . .4. 417 L, Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-127 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 111 Figure 5-45 Hatch Farm Package B Use Al Ha .[it1UI[1I i II - 1� ' LEGEND Iii , r rY Historical Resources II i'= III . / , t . , - Package B Resource Impact I I ¢ 1 � M Package B ROW Boundary - 5LR. 11382 Property Boundary I . Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails I I ' ' Emir Roadway Features FU Retaining Wall ' - r f t Y. 1 Parcel Boundaries L A Guardrails II , a — I, is I I 7 �a ailr 1LIiLqI . Ij..: ELCR20E ` t,.. ;,,,.., 4 IS ir) 1410. -4. ,_ I , 1 i i .apt 101 I r 1 .A a __ «.: I f • I - it � , Is 1: l , 1 II � • �in 1r, . -. ra . 1 -V 9 Ili � - '' '` nil t lilt n 4 : , 4 lilt Int 'ill Wit* 1 . r. _. ,i1ili A . t { r + t rlite pa Area = 38.114 Sq. Ft Acres = 0.87 i,' - . tiX , ,,,.. i- r- It 1 yw 1 I ice- rl� -( ) I i • --w,4_ Is( • 4 sii 41. t � Area = 57,774 Sq. Ft �mi'`i;' , . Location Map , u � I ' ) I I rt•, r-, i M Acres = 1.33 -- Ls' Iir 0 300 !' 1 IP - 1 •` I l Feet North , I , 1 i yak , ISD: ' • III Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-128 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-46 Hatch Farm Preferred Alternative Use >• . 1111'111I•i1IC1.]>•u ... 1 It . ir LEGEND '- Historical Resources J - I ti ` , ' dm Preferred Alternative Resource Impact .r - . ,* .T ' - ;; . . r Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary 1 -. .?,,„%.5LR.11382 Property Boundary ViL :; marRoadway • r RFeatures ... Retaining Wall R � •.:Parcel Boundaries , Guardrails'N � s ►! _ "- _`."'--".'-,�• -,' iii ��t _ 111 ,;I1hl StIIir ' . IS . 1 rL, cl:-._...: • re z r E LCR 20E — . _ . _ / 'rt.: ;.r� Y» r TIIIIIIIIIII-. 1f. p: Li III lie I� 01 1s 0, . — li • ...•"“4 - • I I • !III I • , vi tift.n efic, i. ireirtv d/P /i% 41 f4P-• 40°9 .,A ,,, or . /� R 1 I I I 1 _�/1d.)a ��, fi '1I ill •J , r , 11 4 Thill jel..- ,, •.4. lc, en= - •,. _� .1 • I j• i iel % to 411r.III - 11 i I ' Area = 6,520 Sq. Ft - -SI I� , ' Acres = 0 15 I � I y , ,. t I rt. -. w' ' • 1.`4: 1 :' ! :: �... 4 lit i " A1 .~jf � : b I ar- -• iArc I � ks 1 Fyn 1 I 1 \• WWIt M Ili 1 1 I- Area = 51,488 Sq. Ft Acres = 1 18 j 9! ! i 7 fi i i a' f' I , 1 fly I y. Location Maps ' ll Il ., E t_,- .,} it *' ., y, I Ir I «slf _ , _ �. 0 300 II Ile. �'� ` .. t= lei I Feet North I I �, � � _� . 0. ` 0 . . SII,a F • i Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-129 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927.1) Description Location: North 1-25 1.3 miles south of US 34 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Hillsboro Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 135 feet would be A total of 135 feet would be incorporated into culvert extensions incorporated into culvert extensions Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 55 feet would be incorporated into culvert extensions. Resource Description This segment of the historic Hillsboro Ditch crosses 1-25 just south of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange.The irrigation ditch was constructed as one of the first cooperatively owned ditches in the area. The entire ditch (5LR.8927)is approximately 19.25 miles long. The documented segment in the project APE (5LR.8927.1) • is 2,065 feet(0.4 mile)long. The ditch channel is approximately 20 feet wide. Sparse riparian growth covers both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area is primarily rural in character. Eligibility Determination The entire Hillsboro Ditch is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County. Outside the 1-25 right- of-way,this segment of the functioning ditch appears to maintain its historic alignment and its association with the rural landscape through which it runs. Segment 5LR.8927.1 within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A Under Package A, 1-25 would be expanded to eight lanes, containing three general purpose lanes plus one auxiliary lane in each direction. The Hillsboro Ditch is presently conveyed underneath 1-25 inside a modern concrete box culvert.The box culvert would be replaced with a new 135-foot-long box culvert of the same cross-section dimensions, 14 feet wide and 14 feet tall. That portion of the Hillsboro Ditch already inside the 1-25 culvert has lost integrity. Widening of the 1-25 southbound lanes, ramp, and the associated slopes under Package A would require 90 feet of land west of the existing road slope edge. This requires enclosing 90 feet of open ditch on the east side of 1-25 in a new culvert to allow for the expanded highway construction. Similar widening of the highway and fill slopes along the northbound lanes requires that 45 feet of open ditch be enclosed in a culvert on the east side of 1-25.A total of approximately 135 feet of open ditch would be subject to direct use from Package A transportation improvements. Construction of the concrete culverts would require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access, and would require a temporary easement. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational, and • irrigation water would be protected from by construction-related sedimentation. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-130 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the pre-existing culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible.The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource.Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-47 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Package B improvements include an eight-lane 1-25 facility and would contain two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction. Direct uses of the Hillsboro Ditch associated with Package B are identical in nature and extent to those associated with Package A. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the pre-existing culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible.The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource.Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-47 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 would be expanded to 8 lanes, containing three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The Hillsboro Ditch is presently conveyed beneath 1-25 inside a modern CBC. The box culvert would be replaced with a new, 55-foot-longer box culvert of the same cross section dimensions, 14 feet wide and 14 feet tall. That portion of the Hillsboro Ditch already inside the I-25 culvert has lost integrity. Widening of the 1-25 southbound lanes, ramp and the associated slopes under • the Preferred Alternative would require 90 feet of land west of the existing road slope edge. This requires that 55 feet of open ditch be enclosed in a culvert on the east side of 1-25. A total of approximately 55 feet of open ditch would be subject to direct impact from the Preferred Alternative transportation improvements (see Figure 5-48). Construction of the concrete culverts would require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access, and would require a temporary easement. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from construction-related sedimentation.All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Placing additional short sections of open ditch in new culverts in proximity to the pre-existing culverts would not substantially diminish the qualities that render this resource NRHP-eligible.The proposed modifications affect a very small portion of the entire 19.25-mile linear resource. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the entire Hillsboro Ditch (5LR.8927). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A. B. and Preferred Alternative Retaining walls were employed to limit uses on both the east and west sides of the 1-25 corridor. Eliminating or further reducing the width of medians between the northbound and southbound roadways of 1-25 and between 1-25 and the east frontage road could minimize direct uses to the ditch. This minimization measure is not consistent with the intent to maintain a wider median for future transit needs, and therefore, is not being utilized. No other avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-131 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Mitigation Measures for the Hillsboro Ditch ▪ Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-132 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-47 Hillsboro Ditch Packages A and B Use g g a LEGEND a a Historical Resources — 4 Packages A & B Resource Impact ■ Packages A & B ROW Boundary ■ ,.... ■ 5LR 8927. 1 Property Boundary Packages EOP i--1. Bridge / Culvert ■ W..Roadway Features ♦ Retaining Wall ■ 1 1 Parcel Boundaries A„J Guardrails ■ l‘ ■ h it1 li in 1 ■ ' rIlt : 1 r4 ■ Ill ditch placed inside extended culverts ■ ' ?"4 III Ill y" .---7 f 411 Di r . ■ ,. 4 , 1 A. . 0 ,k kilt ; k 4 90 Linear Feet Impacted _sat- . / \ ■ ' a ''ti 45 Linear Feet Impacted I "1 1 NI ■ I 1-_- 131 Jay i 1 ■ ■ a II i ■ ■ / /. Yq.• II -..-p_ j ■ ■ • - - A . - - ,,/ , ■ ■ k Location Map, -- ■ ■ } ■ ■ ii 0 200 hi ■ ■ ,. Il>✓ 1 Feet North ■ ■ .4 ► r IIINote: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-133 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-48 Hillsboro Ditch Preferred Alternative Use - a LEGEND in Historical Resources O MIPreferred Alternative Resource Impact II "— Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary ,1„.- 5LR 8927.1 Property Boundary U r IPreferred Alternative —. Bridge /Culver. S ^ -4i LJ Roadway Features M—B Retaining Wall • 711/4 Parcel Boundaries " Guarcrails 0 4 . r Er 41 . tofr ter as. f ., ' . II H 1 4 t r _ ► . i (ben ditch placed I inside extended culverts. I p ( L 'I. s_ iio . ,. � - _e - tri __ _mil r4.10,144 4I A L' •I I \• l 55 Linear Feet Impacted i • / 14 r ;-,_, - =-17 s • 'Or. 4 i , i r 1 1 1 1 p ` i II 4 :;:i [ 1 . ` ./ 'r 4 �. -. I ocation Map.: - - 4 .. 1 i t h I\ , I 0 200 // r .- III I Feet North I 4. 41 II . i .'e.Nri: - 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-134 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Mountain View Farm (5LR.11242) Description Location: 5531 E. SH 402, Loveland Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A and C Use of Mountain View Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 A total of 4.76 acres by incorporation of A total of 5.28 acres by incorporation a 65-foot-by 3,200-foot-long strip of of a 60-foot-by 3,900-foot-long strip of farmland adjacent to 1-25 and SH 402 farmland adjacent to 1-25 and SH 402 Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 1.82 acres adjacent to 1-25 and SH 402 incorporated into transportation. Resource Description The Mountain View Farm is located at 5531 SH 402,just west of the 1-25 and SH 402 interchange. The farm was originally patented in 1895 and contains a farmhouse and associated farm buildings. The total acreage of the farm is 136.22 acres. • Eligibility Determination This historic farm is significant for its association with early agriculture in Larimer County, including sugar beet cultivation. The farmhouse and associated farm buildings retain good integrity, and are significant examples of agricultural architecture. For these reasons, the Mountain View Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Section 4(f) Use Package A This historic farm would experience a direct use associated with proposed improvement of the I-25/SH 402 interchange. Package A would realign the 1-25 southbound off-ramp west of the existing off- ramp, and would require the acquisition of a 60-to 100-foot-wide strip of cultivated farmland at the east edge of the historic farm property to accommodate the proposed new off-ramp from southbound 1-25 to SH 402. Another direct use would occur near the farmhouse as a result of widening along the north edge of SH 402 to add turn and through lanes at the off-ramp.The new width of roadway along SH 402 would convert a maximum of 100 feet of farm property at the intersection with the southbound off-ramp, tapering to a 20-foot wide strip of new transportation right-of-way near the driveway to the farmhouse. The highway overpass and ramp intersections would be approximately 22 feet above the highway at the bridge similar to the existing interchange configuration. However, Package A design necessitates extending the slope from the elevated overpass and ramp intersections westward to the existing grade of SH 402 much closer to the historic farm house than is the case with the existing interchange configuration. No historic buildings would experience a direct use from these transportation improvements. A temporary construction easement may be required along the western edge of the property to allow for haul roads, construction access, and/or staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope construction. No permanent use would be anticipated from this temporary construction occupancy of the • farmland property. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-135 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • A total use of 4.76 acres of land would result due to open farmland being converted to paved roadway and fill slopes within the historic farm boundary. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-49 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Anticipated direct use of the property under Package B is similar in character and extent to that expected from Package A improvements.A slightly larger portion of the farm would be incorporated into the project as a result of the realignment of the 1-25 southbound off-ramp, and would require the acquisition of a strip of farmland. The additional impact over Package A results from the wider footprint required to accommodate the managed express lanes.A total area of 5.28 acres of land would be subject to direct impact. No historic buildings would be directly impacted by these transportation improvements. Therefore, it is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-50 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative This historic farm would experience direct impacts associated with proposed improvement of the I-25/SH 402 interchange. The Preferred Alternative would re-align the 1-25 southbound off-ramp west of the existing off-ramp, and would require the acquisition of a strip of cultivated farmland at the east edge of the historic farm property to accommodate the proposed new off-ramp from southbound 1-25 to SH 402 Another direct use would occur near the farmhouse as a result of widening along the north edge of SH 402 to add turn and through lanes at the off-ramp. The new width of roadway along SH 402 would convert a maximum of 100 feet of farm property at the intersection with the southbound off-ramp, tapering • off near the driveway to the farmhouse. The highway overpass and ramp intersections would be approximately 22 feet above the highway at the bridge similar to the existing interchange configuration. However, the Preferred Alternative design necessitates extending the slope from the elevated overpass and ramp intersections westward to the existing grade of SH 402 closer to the historic farm house than is the case with the existing interchange configuration. A total area of 1.82 acres of land would be used from open farmland to paved roadway and fill slopes within the historic farm boundary. No historic buildings would be used by these transportation improvements (see Figure 5.51). However,the presence of the existing 1-25 highway ramps and interchange already introduce modern elements into this agricultural setting. Under the Preferred Alternative, the fill slopes and ramps would be moved closer to the eastern edge of the farm, and would be slightly taller than the existing slopes, ramps and overpass.Another change would be construction of a proposed new park and ride parking lot on the south side of SH 402 near the farm. Traffic noise generated by 1-25 would decrease three decibels because the highway would be re-aligned to the east, away from the farmhouse.Although the new southbound off-ramp would be built on a new alignment closer to and elevated above the farmhouse, noise from existing traffic and the closer ramp would not substantially alter the agricultural setting or diminish the architectural characteristics that render the property NRHP-eligible. A temporary construction easement may be required along the eastern edge of the property for to allow haul roads, construction access, and/or staging areas to facilitate roadway widening and slope building. No permanent impacts would be anticipated from this temporary construction activity on the farmland property, and no farm structures would be affected. Construction-related noise generated by construction equipment and trucks would be temporary in nature and would not permanently affect the character of the farm setting. Thus, indirect effects caused by temporary construction activities are not expected to substantially diminish the function, character, or attributes that render the farm or farm buildings NRHP- eligible. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-136 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The uses associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur along the eastern edge of the farm adjacent to 1-25 where the original integrity of the farm was compromised with the highway's intrusion on the visual landscape some 40 years ago. There would be no materially different visual perception of the farm from the Preferred Alternative. The farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the farm would continue to convey significance in terms of the lands' association with early agricultural development in Larimer County. CDOT's determination is that the farm was still significant in 2006, in spite of the changes to the setting, feeling and association. The farm would continue on as it was in 2006 except for the removal of 1.82 acres in a thin strip of land along portions of the east and south borders of the farm. The land in the far southeast corner of the property is being used as a cattle feed lot and pasture. To the north of the pasture,the land is being used to produce grain.Air photos from previous years show that parts of the land on this farm have been irrigated with center pivot irrigation. A concrete-lined irrigation ditch lateral is located along the east side of the property in the take strip.The land that would be taken along the south property has recently been cropped with grains. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the loss of an additional 1.82 acres of land for construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to this farm because the characteristics that define the integrity of the rural landscape would not be compromised. The location, design, materials and workmanship of the farm would remain the same. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any of the farm buildings nor would the setting be affected. Therefore, it is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence The mountains to the west of the farm continue to be a key element of its historic setting. The interstate highway on the east has been there for over forty years and was a part of the setting when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP. The feeling would remain one of an active farm.The association is still strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. The Mountain View Farm was determined eligible under Criterion A for its association with 20th century Larimer County farming. That association would not change as a result of implementation of the • Preferred Alternative. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packaoes A.B.and Preferred Alternative The farm flanks the existing southbound lanes and off-ramp of I-25 at the junction of SH 402. The increased number of highway lanes included in Packages A and B would require widening of the 1-25 footprint and a corresponding expansion westward of the 1-25 off-ramp onto SH 402. This would result in an intrusion onto pasture and farmland along much of the 1-25 frontage. The overall footprint of this new highway configuration has incorporated a narrow center median to minimize the impact to the farmland. The ramp configuration is the most compact alignment and roadway width to meet safety and design standards for planned highway speeds. Impacts caused by expansion of SH 402 would result from wider toe slopes at the interchange and overpass. Because of the overpass height,the toe slopes would have a longer reach into the farm property. Retaining walls at the interchange were deemed not a feasible and prudent engineering design solution for this location because of the turning movements at the ramps, maintenance issues, and the non-urbanized setting of the interchange would pose a safety risk. Mitigation Measures for the Mountain View Farm • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-137 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-49 Mountain View Farm Package A Use LEGEND Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact i Package A I ROW Boundary 5LR 11242 Property Boundary LI Package A EOP H Bridge Guardrails . .. .:.: . ••- • ,t i1 Roadway Features E�� Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries `.� Guardrails-atI I I 1 • - *ilk ' :t;i ii ie.:, v \„ .. I Area = 1- ...<7441L 207,442 Sq. Ft Acres = 4.76 '... ant ..„ mit: i tgalk I , 1 I j . `% .rte, ' / 1 Wi A w I �� is : a J Try II _ ` hLoction Map .,I ■a R t 0 400 7\ llI Feet FN North \ Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-138 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-50 Mountain View Farm Package B Use LEGEND ' - 'J . Histori cal Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary • 5LR. 11242 Property Boundary Package B EOP F. Bridge Guardrails a I I Roadway Features p-a Retaining Wall Ii Parcel Boundaries 4 Guardrails 1 / . I = ILIH .. • i ii II 1 ti -- I 1 — d 5 III r I II Area = 230, 144 Sq. Ft Acres = 5.28 U EL_ - II \II • I • 4 ' II ,, il I\ 11, yr - "I''a • . i, • i Ll� n I -1 A il . . .,i\l ) 7i,, II I hi Yom` f ' 1 � 1 Ir ,1 1 r M\ , ---__ . Location Mapes \ 0 400 `� 1 `� 1 Feet North \\\\\\\I‘\\I 1 1 0 Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-139 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportationIII Figure 5-51 Mountain View Farm Preferred Alternative Use ' II LEGEND Historical Resources . ,I Preferred Alternative Resource Impact I r , Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary • ' 5LR 11242 Property Boundary _ 1 • Preferred Alternative - . �� Bodge Guardrails EOP Roadway Features Dir+1 Retaining Wall p„ ins _ I Guardrails Parcel Bnundaries �J II II ' III\ II \\ I I ill, ,' ,I'‘‘) ,i ,. . II ' • i '•I II II I 1 II , 1 I ' \II I 1 . � it \\I\ Area = 79,554 Sq. Ft I \\ `! . - - Acres = 1 .82 1 ei-. ' -� i 0 I ` e / 1t I .� \ a \\\\\ 1 ni -- 1 4,—ts_ii-,-7— .,:,: ,:�_ } I at,: / mow .j__ ,, --1F ,'. r , [0: 1) \ .1\\ -� -jr-- tIA , I _ ,402 �^ l� i Location•Map-- \\1, 1 �'`. 11i1 ? 1\ I I rn V V t 0 400 \ ti I 1 Feet North 1, 1111 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-140 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Bein Farm (5WL.5203) Description Location: 3766 CR 48, Berthoud Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Bein Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Improvements: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 17.94 acres by incorporation of A total of 20.04 acres by incorporation of a a 4,600-foot by 150-foot strip of farmland 4,600-foot by 170-foot strip of farmland adjacent to 1-25 and an 800-foot by 110- adjacent to 1-25 and an 800-foot by 110- foot strip of farmland adjacent to SH 60 foot strip of farmland adjacent to SH 60 Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 16.10 acres adjacent to 1-25 or SH 60 incorporated into transportation infrastructure Resource Description • The Bein Farm is located at 3766 CR 48 near the 1-25 and SH 60 interchange. This property was owned by Fred Bein, a pioneer Berthoud stockman and farmer, and one of the most widely-known residents of the Berthoud community until his death in 1933. The property contains a variety of farm buildings constructed in the late 19th century. The total acreage of the farm is 288.45 acres. Eligibility Determination The Bein Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early ranching and farming in the Berthoud area during the late 19th century. Section 4(f) Use Package A This historic farm is located on the west side of the mainline of 1-25, and on the southwest quadrant of the l-25/SH 60 interchange, both of which would be improved under Package A. Package A includes widening of 1-25 in this area to accommodate three general purpose lanes in each direction.The proposed wider highway template would require the acquisition and permanent conversion of a 120-foot- wide, 5,600-foot-long strip of cultivated farmland west of the existing southbound 1-25 lanes into new highway and slopes, resulting in a direct use. West of 1-25, SH 60 would be widened to provide for a safe transition from the interchange ramps to the existing roadway section.The new SH 60 roadway would consist of four general lanes and turning lanes at the interchange,tapering back to two general lanes on the west side of the existing driveway to the farm building complex. The combined 1-25 widening along the length of the Bein Farm, realignment of the southbound on-ramp from the SH 60 interchange, and the widening and reconfiguring of a tapered section of SH 60 on the west side of this interchange would use 17.94 acres along the east and north edges of the property. No farm buildings would be directly impacted. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-141 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • There would be no change to the historic access to this property. The retaining wall along the southbound off-ramp is located on the opposite side of the interchange from the historic farm and would not result in a direct use of the property. The direct use of the historic farm building complex along SH 60 would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-52 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Package B calls for the widening of 1-25 in this area to accommodate two general purpose lanes plus two barrier-separated managed lanes in each direction.The resulting direct impacts from widening of 1-25 would be similar to Package A, but Package B would require a slightly longer southbound 1-25 on-ramp to better join with managed lanes of 1-25 that occupy more land than the shorter Package A on-ramp. Impacts resulting from modifications to SH 60 are the same as Package A. Total use of the farm would be 20.04 acres along the east and north edges of the property. No farm buildings would be directly impacted. Because the direct and indirect impacts to the land within the historic farm complex along SH 60 that would occur under Package B would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the site eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-53 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative This historic farm is located on the west side of the mainline of 1-25, and on the southwest quadrant of the • I-25/SH 60 interchange, both of which would be improved under the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative calls for the widening of 1-25 in this area to accommodate three general purpose lanes and one TEL in each direction. The proposed wider highway template would use a strip of cultivated farmland west of the existing southbound 1-25 lanes into the transportation infrastructure. West of 1-25, SH 60 would be widened to provide for a safe transition from the interchange ramps to the existing roadway section. The new SH 60 roadway would consist of four general lanes and turning lanes at the interchange, tapering back to two general lanes on the west side of the existing driveway to the farm building complex. The combined 1-25 widening along the length of the Bein Farm, re-alignment of the southbound on-ramp from the SH 60 interchange, and the widening and reconfiguring of a tapered section of SH 60 on the west side of this interchange would use 16.10 acres along the east and north edges of the property. No farm buildings would be directly impacted (see Figure 5-54). There would be no change to the historic access to this property. The retaining wall along the southbound off-ramp is located on the opposite side of the interchange from the historic farm and would not result in an indirect impact to the property. The uses associated with the Preferred Alternative would occur along the eastern edge of the farm adjacent to 1-25 where the original integrity of the farm was compromised with the highway's intrusion on the visual landscape some 40 years ago. There would be no materially different visual perception of the farm from the Preferred Alternative. The farm buildings would not be directly affected, agricultural production would continue and the farm would continue to convey significance in terms of its association with early agricultural development in Weld County. The farm would continue on as it was in 2007 when determined eligible for the NRHP except for the removal of approximately 16.10 acres in a strip of land along portions of the north and east borders of the farm. In recent growing seasons,the Bein farm land was irrigated cropland.The center pivot irrigation system sits on the property today. The land was planted to the edge of their property which abuts the 1-25 right-of-way on the east and the CR 38 right-of-way on the north.All of the 16.10 acres that are to be taken for the Preferred Alternative are currently used as • irrigated cropland. The Bein Farm, in spite of a loss of these 16.10 acres of land for the improvement of 1-25,would still convey significance under Criterion A. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-142 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the loss of an additional 16.10 acres of land for construction of this project would result in no adverse effect to this farm because the characteristics that define the integrity of the rural landscape would not be compromised. The location, design, materials and workmanship of the farm would remain the same. The Preferred Alternative would not affect any of the farm buildings.The setting would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative.The mountains to the west of the farm continue to be a key element of its historic setting. The setting of the land to the north of the Bein farm has changed. What was once all agricultural land has been developed over the last decades into commercial and industrial development. The interstate highway on the east has been there for over forty years and was a part of the setting when the property was determined eligible for the NRHP. The feeling would remain one of an active farm established in the eady part of the 20th century. The association is still strong as it is clear that this is still an active farm. The Bein Farm was determined eligible under Criterion A for its association with 20th century Weld County farming. That association would not change as a result of the Preferred Alternative. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A. B. and Preferred Alternative The proposed design is an offset diamond interchange that incorporates southbound off-and on-ramps to and from I-25 that were shifted eastward toward the I-25 mainline in order to avoid use of the gasoline station/convenience store located on the northwest side of the l-25/SH 60 interchange. This configuration also reduces the size of the directly used area on the east edge of this historic farm. Mitigation Measures for the Bein Farm Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-143 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-52 Bein Farm Package A Use LEGEND )7F ll ' I„ k \I �, �" Historical Resources 8 Ill Package A Resource Impact t - il' •�I • • L - _ i I \` - -- Package A ROW Boundary - _ -- 60 i _ - r=te' r 5WL.5203 Property Boundary t -_ ri -:�--t+ I I Package A EOP FS Bridge Guardrails j •,spr J Roadway Features E.. Retaining Wall ,ti ?x t - • - - • EA Parcel Boundaries As Guardrails - ,- 'l , r 1 1 t i i I/ /INSMNIMINWAIMIlle 1 r I I - . . ...... -.I till ! til; - c i . IS I , _ . . _ . _ _. . _ _ ® I Area = 781,428 Sq. Ft ' Acres = 17.94 ../ i ."1 ; ff _.\ 7 41\ . jSlill"" ' t "' ft • _- - N. am.-2_, ,I . . . t t/ L • . /r. � • c Location 11/1113a .,) t -s _ I� ' .. I I I 0 700 I/ �J 1 I Feet , North __ . . I ; _. Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-144 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Ill information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-53 Bein Farm Package B Use LEGEND -1 , ` I Historical Resources �• __ l Package B Resource Impact tulliIII . . - -60 " __ Package B ROW Boundary 44 f �, 5WL.5203 Property Boundary �r ' ii -7 Package B EOP H Bridge Guardrails ,, ,� 1 Roadway Features ... Retaining Wall , fil i i II?f I Parcel Boundaries AS Guardrails �_ I A .� -ter -- r I ia H. 111: • Area = 873,197 Sq. Ft Acres = 2a04 I , . i �I . . ._. _r_o_ •f- ,..._ . . .. -. . . , j1 _.�....r � I ' . I s 25 i 1.. 1 i • • !. --1 r� , , . I .-,_-lir- • . . - . . , __ +4 t.4_4 F.‘• N liv. r r r II I/1 e ,, — -7 (i . .i Wstill ' y l % 1 - i I 1 � • Location Ma ..- i .•, . - II ( hFNt ' p ` L illI Feet North - ( II . ' - I _ - - . .l^12'1,9 ,III Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-145 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-54 Bein Farm Preferred Alternative Use _ . :ark !t!ff ?Resources �. �r�.. t Preferred Alternative Resource Impact r--, " `-- ----' Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary It -T--- `�---0, 5WL.5203 Property Boundary . t l C� Preferred Alternative M.. Bridge Guardrails EOP I F.--A Roadway Features F5 Retaining Wallf Fili Parcel Boundaries �, Guardrails / ! ',•' its; . i , INNIS . ;;. i . /4 fit ,'/ II • . ' / i � ' w 9 ' iIll i I I`z 25 r` Area = 701,217 Sq. Ft Acres = 16.10 •\ r s *-- E l r , , 'i _ /' - S, I I ; r ., - . 4 l C 2 • �I * I Y' t fl - Location Map 1 I I I A1•U ! 6 t. • . _ ';• . WCR 46 ; 0 70017\11, --Lor II 1 Ltttr I Feet North I 1111 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-146 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence (5WL.3149) Description Location: 17820 East 1-25 Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Improvements: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 60 feet incorporated into a A total of 60 feet incorporated into a culvert extension culvert extension Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 74 feet incorporated into culvert extensions. Resource Description The ditch crosses 1-25 along the south edge of CR 48(SH 60)and is conveyed underneath the 1-25 ramps and mainline highway lanes inside a 660-foot-long concrete culvert. The ditch confluence is 2,456 feet long,20 feet wide, earthen, 5 feet deep, with rip-rapped banks. Handy and Home Supply ditches combine • to flow into a concrete diversion gate that funnels water under SH 60,west of 1-25. The grade drops off steeply eastward from 1-25 into 3 drop boxes. Eligibility Determination The entire Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Weld County. Segment 5WL.3149.1 fails to support the integrity of the greater site because it has been modified by recent development. Section 4(f) Use Package A Package A would require modification of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60 intersection turning radius, resulting in a direct use of the resource. The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60, and modification of 10 feet of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60, resulting in a direct use of the resource. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the 1-25 and frontage road, and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-55 for uses associated with Package A. Packaae B Package B would require modification of 10 feel of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60 intersection turning radius. The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 50-foot extension and modification to allow • the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60, resulting in a direct use of the resource. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-147 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of I-25 and the frontage road, and Package B improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-55 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would require modification of the grated culvert intake located west of the current southbound on-ramp to accommodate a new frontage road and widened SH 60/CR 48 intersection turning radius (see Figure 5-56). The outfall of the 660-foot-long culvert similarly would require a 60-foot- extension and modification to allow the redesigned northbound ramp intersection with the widened SH 60/CR 48. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the I-25 and frontage road and because the Preferred Alternative improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A. B. and Preferred Alternative The interchange configuration has been designed to provide an adequate level of service (LOS C)for local traffic and local-to-interstate connections by limiting interstate access and providing free-flowing turning access to ramps. Compressing the diamond interchange to move the southbound ramp close to mainline I-25 has reduced the ditch gate modifications to a very minimum impact. This consolidation along the • westbound or southbound side has forced the east ramps out, resulting in a minimally acceptable distance (turning vehicles storage)between ramp intersection signals by design standard. Mitigation Measures for the Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-148 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 411 - information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5 55 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence Use Packages A and B -- . �.., . - j . f \HSI - LEGEND - Historical Resources 't ' Packages A & B Resource Impact (1 1 A - Packages A & B ROW Boundary r LF►9 ' %j 5WL.3149.1 Property Boundaryf - I Packages EOP ..... Bridge / Culvert } 3, ++ Roadway Features E.0 Retaining Wall , tii Parcel Boundaries L.A Guardrails • , i — 1 , • r , 4 i. Total new culvert New culvert intake grate modification "� • Nwould he 720 feet long of approximately 10 feetip /1 : I. I . I JI - r 1 � i r t 7c-i-i. _ , 3 _ 4 11 l i 1 1 . a I, 1_ • - i 4 , I ,1 1 , t y • xisting culvert 6611 feat long I \, i ,' 50 foot long culvert extension 1 l-I . I 1 I : :../ , / l r I I . NB SB � . • II A I I � I r , Location Map - i lI sT. a t 0 200 �J I Feet N l 1 III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-149 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Figure 5-56 Handy/Home Supply Ditch Confluence Preferred Alternative Use (�l l 6 • 1 I 1 ll� Lit I , �. ;. Historical Resources „\I ' jLEGEND Packages PA Resource Impact Packages PA ROW Boundary ? 1 1 i 15WL.3149. 1 Property Boundary I iil ,i 1 Package PA EOP H Bridge /Culvert1 II 1 y. Roadway Features H Retaining VkalI " rf ' k7l .Parcel Boundaries Ah.J Guardrails r 4 If 1 Total new culvert _ _ grate I. would be 764 feet long r New culvert intake modification A V 'li ' tiwil of approximately 44 feet 1 '. ; , J A r 1 ,? • i 1 She, I Th I -10 iy e �' ,_ 1111/ 1, 1 i J ' 1 � j 1 1 I y • Ii _ Existing culvert 660 feet long _ / ' till / 1 E ' 1 y 4 07"--' f / • .\ 60 foot long culvert extension}l c-.. r l - .4 1 Leif :i':i. , J rl ��rili , I�-- Tri / l / / / J / "� ^� i N B r , . :44 Ilii i' . l' _ ! r.-,V-1411 4 :1 {- I ocation Map 'l I ll1z ri 200 /, ,\ 1 ' 1 Feet North 1i , / r 1 I 1 1:.1. __ f l -R_. - 1 - - - 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-150 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Olson Farm (5WL.5198) Description Location: 17820 East 1-25 Frontage Road Type: Historic farm Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Olson Farm by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Improvements: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 12.74 acres by incorporation A total of 12.81 acres by incorporation of land from both sides of 1-25 of land from both sides of 1-25 Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements: A total of 4.63 acres by incorporation of land from both sides of 1-25. Resource Description This historic farm is located at 17820 East 1-25 Frontage Road near CR 38. The site contains various farm buildings, a reservoir, and farmland used by the Olson family who were early settlers in this area. The • Ballinger Reservoir has an early water appropriation date from 1887, making it one of the early irrigation features in the area. The site boundary is based upon the historic boundary of the Olson Farm, and spans 1-25. The boundary encompasses 155.37 acres, although 13.7 acres comprising the existing CDOT 1-25 right-of-way is considered a non-contributing portion of the site. Eligibility Determination The Olson Farm is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agriculture in Weld County. Section 4(f) Use Package A Under Package A, 1-25 would be realigned and reconfigured for three general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing 1-25 east frontage road would stay in its present alignment, including its crossing of CR 38, but the area needed for the frontage road turning lanes and paved shoulders would be widened along the west edge of the eastern portion of the Olson Farm property. Direct use of this portion of the site would be confined to an 8.75-acre strip of land 2,740 feet long and approximately 110 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe- of-slope for the east frontage road that would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road. A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent any direct use of the Ballinger Reservoir(a contributing feature of the NRHP-eligible farm)that is located mid-way along the east side of the frontage road. A total of 3.99 acres of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to direct impacts under Package A. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package A is 12.74 acres. Temporary occupancy due to installation of the new bridge across 1-25, roadway widening,and the retaining wall at Ballinger Reservoir would likely require a temporary easement on portions of the historic • property for equipment access, haul roads, and other construction activities. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-151 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Because of the site's bisection by the wide 1-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Olson Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-57for uses associated with Package A. Package B Under Package B, 1-25 would be realigned and reconfigured for two general purpose lanes plus one buffer- separated lane in each direction. Direct use of the site under Package B would be similar in nature to that associated with Package A. The slightly larger impact associated with Package B is due to the buffer associated with the buffer-separated lanes.An 8.82 acre of direct use would be confined to a strip of land 2,740 feet long and approximately 120 feet wide at CR 38 at the north end of the property and 30 feet wide at the south end. This impact corresponds to the new toe-of-slope for the east frontage road that would bury the farmland currently located adjacent to the frontage road.A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent direct impacts to the Ballinger Reservoir.A total of 3.99 acres of the eastem portion of the site would be subject to direct use under Package B. The total area subject to direct impacts under Package B is 12.81 acres. Because the farm is bisected by the wide 1-25 corridor, and the lack of direct impacts to the contributing historic farm buildings and reservoir, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package B would result in no adverse effect to the Olson Farm. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-58 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative, 1-25 would be re-aligned and reconfigured for three general purpose lanes and one TEL in each direction. The existing 1-25 east frontage road would stay in its present alignment, including its crossing of CR 38, but the area needed for the frontage road turning lanes and paved • shoulders would be widened along the west edge of the eastern portion of the Olson Farm property. Use of this portion of the site would be confined to a small strip of land at WCR 38 at the north end of the property. This use corresponds to the new toe of slope for the east frontage road which would bury the land currently located adjacent to this portion of the frontage road.A retaining wall would be installed along the edge of the frontage road to prevent direct uses of the Ballinger Reservoir(a contributing feature of the NRHP-eligible farm)located mid-way along the east side of the frontage road. A total of 0.66 acre of the eastern portion of the site would be subject to use under the Preferred Alternative(see Figure 5-59). A strip of farmland located west of 1-25, would be buried below pavement and fill slopes for the widened southbound 1-25 lanes. This would result in 3.97 acres used due to the western re-alignment and widening of the 1-25 roadways. The total area subject to uses under the Preferred Alternative is 4.63 acres. These 4.63 acres are not a character-defining part of this farm. The strip of land on the west boundary of the property is land adjacent to the 1-25 frontage road. That land is currently used for hay production. It is part of a small plot of land that separates the subdivision developed by the Olson's from 1-25. The strip of land on the east side of the East 1-25 Frontage Road, north of the Olson house, is currently vacant. It appears it was a pasture at one time. The remaining strip of land on the east side of 1-25 is part of the front lawns of several non-historic rural residences. Increased highway and frontage road traffic resulting from the Preferred Alternative improvements would generate noise levels two decibels more than the No-Action Alternative. This increase in noise is barely perceptible and would not affect the characteristics which have rendered the property NRHP-eligible. Since the 1960's when 1-25 was constructed, modern transportation elements have bisected the historic farm. The Olson's have developed modern residential subdivisions adjacent to the existing western property boundary. The additional 1-25 and frontage road widening, installation of a new retaining wall near Ballinger Reservoir, and modification of CR 38 overpass would increase the amount of intrusive transportation elements within the property boundary leading to an indirect effect on the historic property, however; these transportation improvements would not affect the historic association of this property with • the agricultural development of Weld County which renders this property NRHP-eligible. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-152 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Temporary effects due to installation of the new bridge across I-25, roadway widening and the retaining wall at Ballinger Reservoir would likely require a temporary easement on portions of the historic property for equipment access, haul roads and other construction activities.The farm would remain operational and measures to protect the property from erosion, dust and water-borne sediment dispersal would be implemented. All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. The setting and feeling of this property have been changed with the 1960s development of I-25 through the center of the farm's historic boundary. The association with agriculture still exists. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource because the land to be taken on the east side of I-25 is not being used for agricultural purposes and there would be no direct effect to the Ballinger Reservoir. The land on the west side of I-25 is serving as a buffer between a subdivision and the Interstate. In addition, the Olson family has developed a subdivision on part of the farmland and hopes to develop more in the future and they are now renting their land out to others for farming. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A, B, and Preferred Alternative The proposed design for the I-25 corridor incorporates a small retaining wall placed along the east side of the east frontage road for the purpose of limiting uses to Ballinger Reservoir,which is a contributing feature on this historic farm. Mitigation Measures for the Olsen Farm ▪ Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • • Maintain operation of farm during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-153 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation0 Figure 5-57 Olson Farm Package A Use LEGEND ; Historical Resources , I. Package A Resource Impact ll Package A ROW Boundary i 1 \ 5WL 5198 Property Boundary \` !. Package A EOP -Iac i d Roadway Features El.. Retaining WaII ' Parcel Boundaries An, Guardrails r l•1t s_ • _— . r__ WCR 3E • / 4 • , I • I, .Z', • 1 I Area = 173,764 Sq Ft / I Acres = 3.99 r-,', .( _ I ! ., 1,.: J'1 ,i Area = 381,085 Sq. Ft i Acres = 8.75 .,. - �� tI d ill I I ‘Ati, , - . __. --- . .• \ -' I �' , 1 ` 4 JT ,r Fla I 11 �f ... '. u, , ; r 1 t •,� I �f t IA i s l le * /..• J . Z / [� y • Y r"� 4-- a i; r, •• J a ..,..r s •" Location Map.- � �� j ��' V \C lj p - --•:-- - 0 400 Vi - 1 Feet North � .y•♦ - Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-154 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-58 Olson Farm Package B Use K\ LEGEND Historical Resources Package B Resource Impact Package B ROW Boundary 5WL.5198 Property Boundary Package B EOP LjRoadway Features El.. Retaining Wall 1,` Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails 1 „ 7 ; WCR 38 rr.�...._--iiir . ,_,,,,,,,,„_ . , I . . .. '.44,k- or ,v . ,V .. - , .4lb: .„,,,... ,, ,..... • ire. .. . // _ •_�__ i....4.. Ill. 41101 f 1 ? 0 c. ' •/ . • r' A.,r7 I / ' P '.. . • s • 1• ' ` , � � , i 1 Area = 384,225 Sq. Ft ' . Area = 173,766 Sq. Ft r .N, % ' Acres = 8.82 , ............4„.... d Acres = 3.99 IIII -I ~ I._, , A i ti r . . ": \ it *4.• -,..� ..e. 1 r i'? ,441 "Jir., � P ��•Ili \ c , _ _ .. _ Jr 2 , • . , mot . , .- . I rig •. ? i 111 scSi ° • y ir) st......4.--7, .. . c 4. ICI: . ; ., !"-1 . . : c . / . II oar; sip r. 4, (Nov.,. ,-.7„. ., i - 1 .. - -, . "FA" / I'll:: - II at *IS ,. Lai. dr• ! W. a "I ' 3 t .1: Location Map } J I rT?1 F. i t F . .-0 17-Ni • :-.-Ltovesioti , , NW h . . 0 400 imi NS I Feet Cm • Alai' . . __ - • Note: EOP—Edge of Pavement Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-155 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-59 Olson Farm Preferred Alternative Use I I LEGEND Historical Resources I Preferred Alternative Resource Impact I j Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary I 1 5WL.5198 Property Boundary I Preferred Alternative EOP , HIReact/say Features M.. Retaining Wall I ,r SA Parcel Boundaries Guardrails 1f} / ( t • -1 _=0, .-_e..�' — - a WCR 38 Se I i I--,i; � 'n: _ - `- . • y, I - -. ' - . ii", �� :� 1 7 II ' a �+ Area = 172,$82 Sq. Ft I I ;t Area = 28,679 Sq. Ft . Acres = 3.97,:.„,... ._ . ..., r Acres = 0.66 4 III i II -1, III ,. , • • ., - \ , •• • M •.a� '. - 4 Ballinger Reservoir I /1 _, -t,- it Total irnpacts of i?��.it-- _ 1 ,. 4.63 acres / ,,,, • -. il I ocation Map r o 4007\1 al I11 y I I Feet I �, .31 North N11 _ 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-156 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, 5AM.457) Description Location: Runs along 1-25 in Broomfield, Adams, and Weld counties Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A and C Use of Bull Canal/Standley Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Highway Widening: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: 120th to Denver Longmont to North Metro End-of-Line Station A total of 908 feet would be placed into three A total of 850 feet would be placed into two culvert extensions culvert extensions Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements and Commuter Rail: A total of 736 feet would be placed into two culvert extensions. Resource Description • The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch is approximately 44 miles long and runs through Adams, Broomfield, and Weld counties. The ditch was originally built in 1907. Several segments of the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch are within the APE. Segment 5WL.1966.1 generally follows a serpentine course adjacent to the east side of 1-25 and crosses the highway and the frontage road in multiple locations. The concrete-lined ditch is approximately 20 feet wide. The portion of the ditch that crosses under I-25 and the frontage road was altered and conveyed under the roadways in concrete box culverts when the highway was constructed in the 1960s. Segment 5WL.1966.1 is 3,524 feet(0.67 miles)long. Well-developed willow growth exists along the south levee of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area includes industrial and residential development.Weld County segments 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 cross the APE at the proposed commuter rail alignment.These segments each contain the 60-foot-wide concrete lined channel running through a rural setting. Segment 5WL.1966.8 is a 607-foot-long segment of the Bull Ditch that follows a gently curving alignment from west to northeast through the project area. The Broomfield County portion of ditch within the APE includes 20-foot-wide segments 5BF.72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 5BF.76.2. Each concrete-lined segment crosses under existing 1-25 and the frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Segment 5BF.72.1 is 1,439 feet(0.27 mile)long. Sparse riparian growth of large mature trees exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area includes agricultural and residential development. Segment 5BF.72.2 is 1,023 feet (0.2 mile)long with grassy vegetation lining the ditch levees. Segment 5BF.72.3 is 3,392 feet(0.64 mile) long.The latter two segments traverse areas characterized by industrial and residential development. Segment 5BF.76.2 is 2,172 feet long and approaches SH 7 from the northwest until it approaches the west side of I-25,where it turns south crossing both SH 7 and 1-25. The ditch,where exposed, is earthen with rip-rapped banks and is about 15 feet wide. The ditch has been extensively realigned by recent commercial development to remove the entire ditch loop north of SH 7 and is now buried in a pipe for its length parallel to SH 7 and crosses south underneath SH 7 via a bridge. This segment of the ditch ends at the foot of the 1-25 southbound on-ramp. The Broomfield segments traverse areas characterized by • industrial and residential development. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-157 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The Adams County segments include 5AM.457.2, 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8. Segment 5AM.457.2 is approximately 35 feet wide and 3,685 feet(0.7 mile)long. This segment crosses under existing 1-25 and the frontage road via modern concrete box culverts. Heavy riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding land now supports mixed development. Remaining segments 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 cross 1-25 and the frontage roads inside culverts installed when 1-25 was constructed in the 1960s. Segment 5AM.457.3 runs east of 1-25 near the base of the northbound off-ramp for SH 7. The ditch runs underneath 1-25 in a 330-foot-long concrete box culvert. The segment appears briefly on the surface at the opening of the concrete box culvert directly east of 1-25 and immediately disappears below ground to cross underneath the Larkridge Shopping Center. Segment 5AM.457.4 of the ditch is located west of 1-25 and south of West 136th Avenue. Most of the ditch segment has been abandoned and the ditch has been realigned at a point further west of 1-25 out of the APE. A portion of the abandoned segment has been obliterated by new commercial construction at the site. Segment 457.8 is no longer functional and has been abandoned. This segment is located east of 1-25 near milepost 226.8. This 1,585-foot-long, 26-foot-wide concrete lined looping ditch segment has been abandoned and no longer functions for irrigation. Weeds and rushes fill the abandoned channel floor, and the concrete lining of the bank is cracked and settled in many places. Eligibility Determination The entire Bull Canal/Standley Ditch was a part of the ambitious, corporate Standley Lake Irrigation System developed in the early 20th Century. The canal is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado,and under Criterion C as an important example of irrigation engineering in the • region. Segment 5WL.1966.11 and 5WL.1966.8 also include good examples of concrete siphons that represent a distinctive method of hydraulic engineering that add to the canal's significance under Criterion C. Segments 5WL.1966.1, 5WL.1966.11, 5BF72.1, 5BF.72.2, 5BF.72.3, and 5AM457.1 within the project APE retain sufficient integrity of location, setting, feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Resources 5BF.76.2, 5AM.457.3, 5AM.457.4, and 5AM.457.8 were found to be modified, and lack sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(t) Use Package A Segment 5WL.1966.1: This historic canal is currently conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road in two locations through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct use of the canal would occur. Segment 5BF.72.1: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A, the 1-25 template would be reconfigured to contain four general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package A. Segment 5BF.72.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A,the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct use of the canal would occur. Segment 5BF.72.3: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of four general purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would • be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package A. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-158 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Segment 5BF.76.2: Package A would require putting the 750-foot-long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 buried pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 concrete box culvert in a buried culvert(see Figure 5-60). Segment 5AM.457.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package A, the existing 1-25 template would be maintained in this area. The existing box culverts would not require replacement or modification, and no direct use of the canal would occur. Segment 5AM.457.3: Package A would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the I-25 northbound off-ramp(see Figure 5-60). Segment 5WL.1966.11: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast trajectory across this historic ditch segment. The new rail line would closely parallel an existing active rail through this area. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade.The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension would be necessary to accommodate the new additional rail line, therefore no direct use would occur. Segment 5WL.1966.8: In the vicinity of this historic ditch,the proposed new commuter rail line would run closely parallel to the east side of an existing active rail line. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade.The existing culvert would be left in place and approximately 58 feet of open ditch would be placed in a new culvert extending beneath the proposed new commuter rail line(see Figure 5-61)resulting in a direct use of the resource.Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. The Bull Canal/Standley Ditch would experience a total direct use of 908 feet of open ditch that would be • placed inside a culvert at three locations; at 1-25 segments 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3, and along the commuter rail on Segment 5WL.1966.8.Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at those locations. No other direct use would occur to the remaining seven segments. Therefore, FHWAand CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Packaae B Segment 5WL.1966.1: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be realigned farther to the east. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. Segment SBF.72.1: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. Segment 5BF.72.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general-purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-159 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Segment SBF.72.3: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of four general-purpose lanes in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no direct use of the canal would occur under Package B. Segment 5BF.76.2: Package B would require placing the 750-foot-long remainder of the ditch located between the SH 7 buried pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 concrete box culvert in a buried culvert(see Figure 5-60). Segment 5AM.457.2: This historic canal is conveyed underneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern concrete box culverts. Under Package B, the 1-25 template would consist of three general purpose lanes plus one buffer-separated managed lane. The portion of the ditch that currently crosses under the highway and frontage roads is conveyed inside a concrete box culvert. The new roadway would be contained within the current roadway template and no new disturbance would occur to areas of the ditch located outside the existing culverts. The integrity of that portion of the historic canal to be placed in a culvert has already been compromised by the original construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, and no new direct use would occur. Segment 5AM.457.3: Package B would result in placing an additional 100 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the 1-25 northbound off-ramp (see Figure 5-60). Segment 5AM.457.4: Highway widening of 1-25 resulting from Package B would not result in use of this ditch.A permanent water quality basin is planned in proximity to the ditch but would not result in a direct impact to this feature. There would be no temporary construction impacts to this feature. Segment 5AM.457.8: Package B improvements do not encroach on the ditch. Temporary construction impacts would be avoided at this site. • The Bull Canal/Standley Ditch would experience a total direct use of 850 feet of open ditch that would be placed inside a culvert at 1-25 segments 5BF.76.2 and 5AM.457.3,where the ditch has already been highly modified by 1-25 construction in the 1960s. Temporary construction activity would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at those locations. No other direct use would occur to the remaining seven segments. Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457). It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Preferred Alternative Segment 5WL.1966.1: In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to contain a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no use of the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Segment 5BF.72.1: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no use of the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Segment 5BF.72.2: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained. The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts,and no use of the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-160 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Segment 5BF.72.3: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modem CBCs. In this area, 1-25 would be widened to the median to provide a new template consisting of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The existing east frontage road would be retained.The proposed transportation improvements in this area would not require replacement or modification of the existing box culverts, and no use of the canal would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Segment 5BF.76.2: The Preferred Alternative would require putting 615 feet of the ditch located between the SH 7 pipe outfall and the existing 1-25 CBC in a buried culvert. West of the SH 7 outfall the ditch would be capped for a short distance where it runs adjacent to SH7 (see Figure 5-62). Segment 5AM.457.2: This historic canal is conveyed beneath 1-25 and the east frontage road through modern CBCs. Under the Preferred Alternative, the 1-25 template would consist of three general purpose lanes plus one TEL in each direction. The portion of the ditch that currently crosses under the highway and frontage roads is conveyed inside a CBC. The new roadway would be contained within the current roadway template and no new disturbance would occur to areas of the ditch located outside the existing culverts. The integrity of that portion of the historic canal to be placed in a culvert has already been compromised by original construction of 1-25 in the 1960s, and no new direct or indirect impacts would occur under the Preferred Alternative. Segment 5AM.457.3: The Preferred Altemative would result in placing an additional 121 feet of open ditch into a culvert extension east of the 1-25 northbound off ramp(see Figure 5-62). Segment 5WL.1966.11: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment. The new rail line would be constructed on an existing railroad grade through this area. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension should be • necessary to accommodate the new rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Segment 5WL.1966.8: In the vicinity of this historic ditch,the proposed new commuter rail line would be constructed on an existing railroad grade. The historic ditch has already been placed in a culvert beneath the existing railroad grade. The existing culvert would be left in place and no culvert extension should be necessary to accommodate the new rail line. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 5-61). A total of 908 linear feet of open ditch would be used.Approximately 736 feet of ditch would be placed inside two culverts at the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange. West of these culverts another section of the ditch would be capped as it runs adjacent to SH7 on the north side of the roadway. In this area much of the ditch has already been realigned and it currently runs through existing culverts beneath 1-25 and its ramps as well as SH7. As a result of these previous alterations, segment 5BF.76.2,was found to lack sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity at that location. No other direct or indirect impacts would occur to the remaining seven segments. As a result of the impacted segments lack of integrity to support the eligibility of the entire resource, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic Bull Canal/Standley Ditch (5WL.1966, 5BF.72, 5BF.76, and 5AM.457),It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Packages A, B.and Preferred Alternative The physical railway template has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-161 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Mitigation Measures for the Bull Canal/Standley Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-162 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • - — information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5 60 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch Packages A and B Use - ., , -i. lit, LEGEND f Historical Resources / t • ' 4 •, , fr . t I , r _ Packages A & B Resource Impact ' ,� ,, Packages A & B ROW Boundary of i, ;j / '®: I SAM 457 3 & 5BF 76.2 Boundaries r: rl� Cat J Packages EOP H Bridge / Culvert N • '� �; v. I f s J Roadway Features �i Retaining wall ►!r , ' ' / i .1 F 14 t 1 Parcel Boundaries `J Guardrails • tO ;=` i -4 , ;7 ;'�' n ir: iii Va � ' i } --''.—--C. -Vt. 0 i' 'i a i. • ��..- --=-. - t Existing culvert e i{ ;! :f y r , � • ,, f under SH 7 a i t _ ;A-4-.• ,s •= . "- 10. - `f • _ K _ _. •_ - .• .•. . .. Cr' _ .y t 1 ..t / / fit.,ti. Erna 41,, \ r•: /P: �iYill iiii 750 linear feet of impart �� if ! ' ri , r • 1 , -i• - ' • • 2 , 111/ 1 . J 1 41 Existing culvert • ' 330 feet long 1\7hi' t • . . , lam, , `•,� 8�� 4 i , [New 100-foot-long Ve 4. i _LL.. _,Ir'. ' 1 cS •,A / r )� culvert extension art '' A' t, ''PI • i 1/4%4 Cy- I ♦ fret .• NB i • r• ,. / t • /1 , _ / * le , Location Mapi / , // �` pj. :63...,1,",. .pc • /J CI: . 0 Le i feet North '�'91 II .;#i ` Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-163 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-61 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch — Package A Commuter Rail Use - - a LEGEND : . , '? ' a b ' '' 1 , Historical Resources . - Package A Resource Impact , . Ai- Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary _' 5WL 1966.8 Property Boundary QPackage A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Design i ii - = Parcel Boundaries H Bridge I Culvert \% y;t �,, y I I4,1' t,H : : . . , ; Open ditch would be placed inside an extended culvert; -/ 58 linear teat impacted \ . 0 e xtii . \ . . ,. .. i Nil . . \ n . . • . , I , . . . • i . it �' : '\-1k , k. -41t-----:--I- ..#-. .. _----------'' lilt; - . _ , I" Existing culvert �• \ -. i = '\ (ilk: , . u y „ " j 4 . \• i}� • - ) i _ 1 . % / . 1 . Location Map ,'5 . cam.. 150 Z\ , j 6- Feet North ' III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-164 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-62 Bull Canal/Standley Ditch — Preferred Alternative Use i _. r - LEGEND ' Historical Resources / .. Preferred Alternative Resource Impact r I J Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary i ;e�5AM.457.3 & 5BF.76.2 Boundaries4 IEOoPreferred Alternative �. Bridge ' Culvert1. Roadway Features �� Retaining MUl� II ( 1 j` ! ' i f I -� Parcel Boundaries `�, Guararails a i t DO I (Ditch will becapped] , , Existing culvert /11 ' ..�` ,j under SH 7 I / / �' , i \ -- ' ` r ,.me— • • ili OIL ■ . al - • ID ■ ' . . . ■ ■ ■ \' \ill : \VT I _ r / / 615 (meat feet of impact fpis ) „ 4/1 Existing culvert - 330 feet Ion / S�� 4r / �I \ J/ / i t / /� (Jew 121 -foot-long 142 / T / ,. //;/ / IF . jr� i i //// 78 / - r( n \r. 4 • _ . l( � t-' I , 4 , / / / 0 200 / / / Feet Ng - orth : III ., , , , , / .....__ . - _("%eitiabi, Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-165 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Colorado and Southern Railway Depot / Loveland Depot (5LR.488) Description Location: 405-409 Railroad Avenue in Loveland Type: Historic train depot Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A and C Use of Loveland Depot by Package Package A A-T1 Transit Component- Package B Commuter Rail: B-T1 Transit Component/BRT: Fort Collins to Longmont Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver A total of 0.03 acre No use Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: No Use Resource Description The Loveland Depot is located at 405-409 Railroad Ave. in Loveland. It was built in 1902 by the Colorado and Southern Railway Company which was the successor, in 1898, to the Colorado Central Railroad which originally laid tracks through Loveland in 1877. Loveland, an agricultural community, was dependent on the railroad for its economic survival and the depot was critical for efficient • movement of freight and passengers. Eligibility Determination This structure is significant under Criterion A for its role in rail transportation in northern Colorado. It is also architecturally significant under Criterion C as a good example of a turn-of-the-century depot. Section 4(f) Use Package A The historic Loveland Depot is adjacent to the existing BNSF railroad tracks. A concrete station platform (350'long 22'wide)would be built between that depot and the tracks. This platform would be placed adjacent to the west side of the depot. Approximately 0.03 acre of the 0.43 acre historic property would thus be converted from ownership by the BNSF to commuter rail use. Because the use of this parcel was historically for transportation purpose and the proposed modifications would affect a small portion of the historic property, the FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Loveland Depot. See Figure 5-63 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any of this property resulting from Package B. Preferred Alternative There is no direct use of any of this property resulting from the Preferred Alternative. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-166 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A In order to reach this de minimis finding the segment of commuter rail within the boundary of the historic depot has been reduced to a single track. In this configuration,the use of the Loveland Depot property has been reduced from demolition of the depot building to placement of the station platform along the edge of the depot property. Mitigation Measures for the Loveland Depot ▪ Permanent easement or property acquisition will be completed under Uniform Relocation Act. • Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped. • Attempt will be made to incorporate the depot into the station platform. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-167 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-63 Colorado and Southern Railway Depot/ Loveland Depot — Package A Use : Art iii ' liLEGEND '' 11111111_ _ - Historical Resources • Package A Resource Impact - - - - - 5LR.488 Property Boundary ittI .• r Historic Depot Budding Footprint I I - ..- • •1 - • Recent Building Addition inol historic) - , - ter- • - - y r . S NIL Commuter Rail Design .1 • • `• �� Parcel Boundaries ' • . • • r .l a '7. • i 1 f 1 ( N i . • ; we I * I l .1 N I , D "4 I el a i4 4. ail , • ' I lirt .. .. ..,:.. .........,.,.... , , .. a ...... I. . e. . & : 4 • •. - . . i SIRii i i '4 " . . • • •. en , .� AIllr, rea Impacted 1.253 Sq Ft `-- , a�� 0.03 Acres g@a@Ui 4 . „ a ,-....„ ,..,... ... r. ._ . •• •. ♦ �- - III ; ,a _ ■ rr 111 I : eII .`s'ri�UiMa" Y ( i l e w. sr • L s r . %. ■ �� ici p, t � . - ; Q� ` _i.1 • ll i ' - 6.01,IC ■ ■ j 1' S� �� . ` , _ rr r • ■ , J. OW' _ f 1 I ■ ' r Ar ■!■r 0 �+� '� ■ •� IErs■1 •■ i' M Total Area: 18.665 Sq Ft ■ 0.43 Acres . tibi r /. , ' t.C:] i s Nat .� L� �� .. • • alin �'a la • ski Location Ma0P r q J: ... r - - -'C r•:.► I I- I o 0 100 Irk ` , i Feet North N t_ .t , III i._ _ _ a _ Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-168 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Supply Ditch (5BL.3449) Description Location: 100 feet southwest from the CR 21115th Street intersection north of Longmont Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Supply Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T1 Transit Component- B-T1 Transit Component/BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver Fort Collins to Longmont A total of 65 feet would be placed into an culvert No use extension Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: A total of 45 feet would be placed into a culvert extension. • Resource Description The entire earthen ditch was constructed in 1861 and is approximately 22 miles long. The segment within the project APE (5LR.3449.2)is 100 feet long and follows its original historic alignment through the project area and is in good functional condition. This segment of the Supply Ditch crosses the active BNSF rail line in a culvert. Both banks are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas. The surrounding area supports industrial and residential development. Eligibility Determination The Supply Ditch was determined to be NRHP-eligible by OAHP in 1992. The ditch is eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. This segment(5BL.3449.2)retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A The historic Supply Ditch currently crosses the active BNSF railroad line via a culvert. The proposed commuter rail line would be aligned 20 feet north and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment carrying the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 65 feet wide.Thus, 65 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert underneath the new commuter rail line on the south side of the existing rail line. The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a pre-existing impacted section (crossing under the active rail line).This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 22-mile-long linear resource.Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Supply Ditch. See Figure 5-64 for uses associated with Package A. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-169 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative The historic Supply Ditch currently crosses an active railroad line via a culvert. Under the Preferred Alternative,the proposed commuter rail service would be added to the active rail line. However, a required maintenance road would be constructed on the north side of the existing rail line with fill slopes impacting approximately 46 linear feet of the historic ditch (see Figure 5-65). The portion of the ditch subject to use by the maintenance road is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active freight rail line). This additional use would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible. The proposed modifications use a relatively small section of the 22 mile-long linear resource. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Supply Ditch. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A and Preferred Alternative The physical railway template has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Supply Ditch • Permanent easement or property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource • during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-170 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Figure information. cooperation. transportation. 5-64 Supply Ditch Package A Use it .: LEGEND • Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact I Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary • 5BL 3449.2 Property Boundary t Package A Comm Rail Footprint ¢ , Commuter Rail Design �F i i ., Parcel Boundaries '�" ii Existing culvert . • ,,r i 4= i 74 . It , c_, , de .4,, ,r . . . .. , 1 \ 1- . . fir e ddi, ., . ___ . St - ,. , : ,00, -", ci;e. 4 le rr } " e' • \ \ 4 if _ A III ...i. :., . �C.. . . _ , . -40009 ii ' . 4./// Open ditch would be placed inside extended culvert; . /// 65 Linear Feet Impacted -. - - '"as- I Ye/ 7 i • 1 I \ ` I-I_ � 15c' {7!--s-4-77:` 't ,, . i ! , i; .) ----its F -. 4 )1 . . (: . --LE -4J _i ,/ -w- , silli..AN L Ilt: • t le ' 13 "fit211 I .. 3, _Location Map -- 4 I I 0 200 Q toie imilrttrtt> l I Feet North 1 SA* 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-171 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Ill Figure 5-65 Supply Ditch Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND % 1" ', Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact I.,Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary l , 5BL.3449.2 Resource Boundary z,,, QPreferred Alternative Comm Rai Footprint r-- - Commuter Rail Design S > Existing railroad ``ra Ile Parcel Boundaries N.. Bridge Guardrails I I -- s 4, . I 4 \ j r _ ,. voie: il . J Maintenance road 4 �R centerline `'� ' /' __..--------9,-,*- , ' 4,, / ti"-, Ir" i If ill \\4, . irreeirr--- , C. e ,• ti Ai j z- : 46 Linear Feet Impacted ill ,- , • ' ! \ . . - . i = 1 l O I 1 O " - T - y i ;. ,Cll.,' / L . Location Map 11 it --4 ) i11 -N ' 4 ,. r. [ 0 200 '` Feel North i . • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-172 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Rough& Ready Ditch (5BL.3113) Description Location: North of the Main Street/21st Avenue Intersection in Longmont Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Rough & Ready Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T1 Transit Component- B-T1 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver Fort Collins to Longmont A total of 35 feet placed into a culvert No use extension Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: A total of 45 feet placed into a culvert extension. Resource Description This segment of the historic earthen Rough & Ready Ditch crosses underneath the active UPRR alignment via a concrete culvert. The entire ditch is approximately 16.5 miles long.The segment within the project • APE (5BL.3113.67)is 100 feet long. This segment is the oldest portion of the ditch,with water appropriated in 1869.The ditch is 20 feet wide and 6 feet deep, is in good condition, and much of its length follows the historic alignment.At the east side of the railway crossing,the ditch is piped underground beneath a power substation. Well-developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in many areas. The surrounding area supports rural residential development. Eligibility Determination In 1991,the OAHP officially determined the entire Rough & Ready Ditch (5BL.3113)to be NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The segment within the project APE (5BL.3113.67) retains sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A The historic Rough & Ready Ditch currently crosses the active railroad line inside a modern concrete culvert. The proposed commuter rail would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad.The elevated embankment supporting the new tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 35 feet wide. Thus, 35 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the new commuter rail line and ballast on the south side of the existing rail line. The portion of the ditch subject to direct impact by the commuter rail line is in close proximity to a pre- existing impacted section (crossing underneath the active rail line). This additional impact would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible.The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 16.5-mile-long linear resource. Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Rough & Ready Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-66 for uses associated with Package A. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-173 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative The historic Rough &Ready Ditch currently crosses the active railroad line inside a modern concrete culvert. The proposed maintenance road associated with the commuter rail line would be aligned east and parallel to the existing railroad. The elevated embankment supporting the road would require an area approximately 35 feet wide. Thus, 35 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new culvert beneath the maintenance road on the east side of the existing rail line (see Figure 5-67). The portion of the ditch subject to use by the Preferred Alternative is in close proximity to a preexisting impacted section (crossing under the active freight rail line). This additional use would not substantially diminish the qualities that make this resource NRHP eligible.The proposed modifications affect a relatively small section of the 16.5 mile-long linear resource. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative transit improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Rough&Ready Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A and Preferred Alternative A retaining wall was included in the design on the east side of the proposed tracks to minimize impacts to homes and businesses in the Longmont area.This retaining wall also mitigates the impact to the ditch.A culvert would also be installed. The physical railway template of graded bed,track, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Rough and Ready Ditch • • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-174 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. -Figure 5-66 Rough & Ready Ditch Package A Use WS, a-a a--`1F- 'Jr'I- aa rt h 1 it L ill LEGEND t IL i Historical Resources ' ? 1 1 Package A Resource Impact Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary h 5BL.3113.67 Property Boundary .- — ' Jim Package A Comm Rail Footprint Commuter Rail Designegg Parcel Boundaries 1 ;!� \ I llit:Hel 1 : il --, .-i ' t ` ` I ,, ;�F. f ill- 44 : Et. r Q,. i. • at ` Existing culverts_._ .t c:. : , eJ ; . i • ., . • i1/4,\ .\•: .�iP`; f'f, ,+:" Mtn .fr . , I f 4 *1•• % . . ' • - — • \ .. 21ST AV s ' .n r. Open ditch would be placed • inside new culvert; -Y 1 i �, r # 35 Linear Feet Impacted _ _ 1 _ 1 1 i 1 \ ar ' '"A * . 1:---o.' .:4 ...! 44 -• - v-- , • .l 1 I ., ,izs us L -. . • o in* --LT' , I . ti-A. , , . /; , �� , • , ; tie , ; - __. l M', .�� per ' r • .4e -.. ill!!! �� 10 / • *7 1 P., __, _41$04:1 d„,...., N. „.=-1.-' -t1 i t b_ ' � • ♦ i ...; / -- t littiglii t ti Location Map Tan . , I • ; . . .. _ i I r. \ i `� iceel ' i. - - ' • • ` \t • f � '' ii0 0 200 - � IIII Feet i —''fkr �, + _ , 1North -•i1i ►r F' Wiribp,S, ' A.A. ,. 4 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-175 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-67 Rough & Ready Ditch Preferred Alternative Use , s r ` � , t +I LEGEND 11,, : yyft. . r'... t• I Y T� Historical Resources I t ,, lb Preferred Alternative Resource Impact • _. . 1 • . - II a. :b Preferred Alternative Comm Rail { I. ROW Boundary rii . t, ' �* I Aalli A iii I _ , 5BL 3113.67 Resource Boundary _ Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint t '# � � _ Commuter Rail Design *_ _ _ i__ p-,,, Parcel Boundaries F. Bridge Guardrails . r'��V w r \ lit• rr \ I ,_ •I N . I e, • rl+ I IiillbtH 1. 4 r . ..minommes7. i . • -. - ��_ -- h : . Novato774)..r Existing culverts • - f 4111 kerti. 1. I Al hissi li 11 -a I-. A - =' ' Open ditch would be placed :. • ' inside new culvert; 21ST AV 35 Linear Feet Impacted . / , I \ ii:Lairre, f - .41. , . , _ ...._ O . , 41 eat la - • I- *.. Z T - J rI ,, .ia _a► 7 ,�1 1 , ry I _ a 1 { T I -- / Tate.... , . ///as J• _� Jto w� OG M id* iii+ +____ ; rr.,t;.r _ rt.a-�' I_— e �+ z A•` 1 e' St; - - i le 4 *14 . . 4i. . • . .,t r R — sari;; . � tiiiratt i- 1 ti • , Location Map �, -y- . Ats.4,4. • .. se . l . tf b, !h 0 200 �� : Ii i t' r lommmimi 1 Feet North / II Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-176 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Oligarchy Ditch (5BL.4832) Description Location: T3N/R69W, NEY Sec. 34; T2N/R69W, N1/2 Sec. 12 Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Oligarchy Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T1 Transit Component- B-T1 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver Fort Collins to Longmont 48 feet placed in culvert extension No use Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: Culvert extension of 64 feet. Resource Description The entire earthen ditch is approximately 15.6 miles long. The ditch has been associated with Boulder County irrigation since its first appropriation date of 1861, which is among the oldest in the county. Two segments of the ditch cross the commuter rail corridor. Segment 5BL.4832.28 crosses the active BNSF • railway alignment in a culvert approximately 500 feet south of 17th Avenue in Longmont. This segment is 100 feet long,21 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Both banks of the ditch are covered by heavy riparian growth in many areas.The surrounding area supports rural residential development. A second Oligarchy Ditch segment(5BL.4832.26)follows a meandering course through the proposed commuter rail alignment crossing south of SH 119 and Rogers Road intersection. This segment in the project APE is one mile long.Well-developed riparian growth exists along both banks of the ditch in some areas. The surrounding area supports semi-rural residential development. Eligibility Determination The Oligarchy Ditch is NRHP-eligible under Criterion A for its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Boulder County. The two segments located within the APE retain sufficient integrity to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A Portions of Segment 5BL.4832.26 of the historic Oligarchy Ditch would pass through the new dedicated commuter rail corridor. The ditch meanders across this area, often running parallel to the planned railroad alignment. A 1,200-foot-long concrete box culvert crosses underneath SH 119. The railway alignment follows a broad sweeping curve, and intersects the irregular course of the ditch at two places. Because the ditch and railroad alignments generally run parallel, a 210-foot-long stretch of the open ditch would be spanned by a new commuter rail bridge, conveying the intact open ditch beneath the new rail line on the west side of SH 119. There would be no direct use of the ditch at this location. The proposed commuter rail would be aligned 20 feet northeast and parallel to the existing railroad and crosses Segment 58L.4832.28 of the ditch. The new embankment supporting the tracks and ballast would require an additional area approximately 48 feet wide. Thus,48 feet of the open ditch would have to be placed in a new extension of the existing BNSF railroad culvert beneath the new commuter rail line • on the south side of the existing rail line.Although the physical integrity of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing a portion of it into a culvert,this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-177 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • A total of 48 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a new extended culvert at Segment 5LR.4832.28. Temporary construction activity would occur at the site during culvert installation. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would not substantially alter or impact the qualities that render the Oligarchy Ditch historic, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). See Figure 5- 68 and Figure 5-69 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There would be no use of the Oligarchy Ditch resulting from transportation improvements associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Segment 5BL.4832.28: The proposed commuter rail line under the Preferred Alternative would include the addition of a passing track on the east side of the existing rail line and a maintenance road on the west side in this area. The new embankment supporting the tracks and ballast would require an area approximately 48 feet wide to the east and the embankment supporting the new roadbed would require an area approximately 16 feet on the west. Thus,the existing culvert that carries Oligarchy Ditch underneath the railway would be extended; impacting 64 linear feet of the open ditch that would have to be placed in a new culvert(see Figure 5-70).Although the physical integrity of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing a portion of it into a culvert,this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. Segment 5BL.4832.26: Portions of this segment of the historic Oligarchy Ditch would pass through the proposed route of the new commuter rail line under the Preferred Alternative. The ditch meanders across this area, often running parallel to the planned railroad alignment.A segment of the ditch was realigned during construction of Ken Pratt Boulevard. (SH 119),with the old channel being covered up and a • 1,200-foot-long portion of the ditch placed in a 1,200-foot-long culvert underneath 3rd Avenue and SH 119. The railway alignment follows a broad sweeping curve, and intersects the irregular course of the ditch west of 3rd Avenue. As a result a 61-foot-long stretch of the open ditch would have to be bridged by a new railroad structure. A total length of 61 feet of open ditch would be spanned by a new bridge(see Figure 5-71). The resulting overhead cover would shade the portion of the ditch located underneath the bridge, but all structural support elements such as piers or abutments, would be placed outside of the historic boundary and would not result in a direct impact to the ditch. The physical setting of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it underneath a bridge structure. A cumulative total of 64 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a new culvert(5BL.4832.26)and 61 feet of open ditch would flow undemeath a new bridge(5BL.4832.28). Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation. Because the physical integrity of the ditch segment would not be substantially compromised by placing a portion of it inside a culvert and underneath a bridge structure, and these changes affect only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Oligarchy Ditch (5LR.4832). It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Package A and Preferred Alternative A retaining wall was included in the design on the east side of the proposed commuter rail tracks at Segment 5LR.4832.28 to minimize impacts to homes and businesses in the Longmont area south of 17th Avenue.This retaining wall also mitigates the direct impact to the ditch by shortening the length of open ditch conveyed within a culvert,thus minimizing the loss of historic ditch integrity at this site. No other minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures were possible. The physical railway template of graded beds, rail tracks, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. The new culvert carries the ditch • along the shortest distance to cross the railroad footprint. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-178 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Mitigation Measures for Oligarchy Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-179 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-68 Oligarchy Ditch Package 111 g g y g A Use - F ,_ - 11 LEGEND ` . % Ii' Historical Resources . . Package A Resource Impact ru` I 4 r,'. k Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary .. , SBL.4832.26 Property Boundaryi i ,c tJ Package A Comm Rail Footprint A M S Commuter Rail Designill: , - ' t . i _, i Parcel Boundaries i Bridge / Culvert r ' o V*4 Y% _ lessT 1 jr o -.-. ,, .t- , ma , I f - _ ,,:.*, .t, 4r,...,_ . ,-.?. • ..- - ---siZ 4 Ihrtr.............„_____ '"46.,:‘ lit 44),.PC° .." . -t II ttglit 4.11 �� ..be •''r " Existing culvert eall1— - — — '4►'e 210 linear feet of open — ili�" ditch would be placed A ' + i. ` � y under new bridge fi jr7/: III •1.:.........., Ole _, _ , .4it..... . ?Vitt - , WI.c ` -\ � • mss'' •_ .1. If r1 : : ,r--- %\,. ' 44�—t .-'.. i �, Via r KYUE DR �:1G� ._,„<_, , :ILI 73 is.7- , ipiptb 60401:, . . -,..0 -, , j1( j\ ry • ' .� • �- 4 - -t � ' \ l ....4„,_~+' rem „,..r..., o 4e roar cp. mg F •fir �t tF • I iz �-. .„4 :c-J.3,7:.. .u,,e � 1� ,,,,,,,„„,. ...,„,,,„,..,..".....,:0„„,iii-7 . , :).:, .! i 11 *-,c , fig ►.--1 TERN DR , L / Li. —�—. GREA7l t t �: nyi Itliiirisi.-1 . -- 4 _ Location Map'! -- ` "•� '- 0 300 4. animas —rb. .• ..-bb ri -.' • tiX.4E_ J f r t Feet ` • ` it :, ..- North •'' . : ''..--.1.4_lits. 7 1 . — Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-180 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • - information, cooperation transportation. Figure 5 69 Oligarchy Ditch Package A Use LEGEND ' l I .t. '` i 1 Historical Resources _ • / ` r , 11 L Package A Resource Impact ;' ! - . Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary , , 5BL.483228 Property Boundary _I' _ . ----;--440.,, - - — .I . _ • :—'s L ,n Package A Comm Rail Footprint into 1rr!^r - --•- s CommuterRailDesign y it` r 17#TH AV Parcel Boundaries • r i 1 --4 100i -1 * . : . i 4:1_ : it"at ,7' t 1 ' IP — [ iii; 1 i , , ,Ni$► t f � Ho Dr s . ls- • t 00i u .. Open ditch would be placedii \ .. - ail \ " S inside an extended culvert; r , : • 48 Linear Feet Impacted mss -� / ‘7 A i , f.' e lap lir ., • 1 L "Fe 6:1 .1 , .- Wect , . rfrit. vo, . ..4.204$. 0:44Hotisrl ::: -- :1, blot opi is ' • 4 i t ^ ANN A . 1 r„., _ 1 • i ' I- Existing culvert — - ea r • •s . O1-.- ri a . tI r i i jf .-"."- Si...\_ildi , _ 2„.„._ t r a ..4 u,` spa 4 i s. -- l I = t • e • , - `4,0 , jilik\ ti It. • t � frr • r.a • s� ''� 1 f ►• 0Ft ♦',I.\ '1 r ‘ er 4:".".1.- ' t. IN F l_ / . N _ r''� I '�. .. } 1 .• ` 3 I r �1 - i ice► �, ` . Location yap.< ` m ' s': 0 150 0 lF- S> • III I I Feet North1 .1 r Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-181 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. ill Figure 5-70 Oligarchy Ditch Preferred Alternative Use ' Jr LEGEND Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ° y` , — Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Jr� a A � ROW Boundary • 5BL.4832.26 Resource Boundary . • r 1-1 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footpnnl _ - Commuter Rail Design - tr�r aParcel Boundaries II. Bridge Guardrails ! r . , . tot6 sii • .3'�..."r .. • _. . # Ito \., . i ., . • ; . .: 43. , . . . . . , . : .. , ._ , • 1 Ai& I;.. . , - 14 ..c .... ._ . it_ . ,.. ha . Tmvissta. s . . rk r, 41• ,4Y .t " r Existing culvert r • -• .- '' „- i. U'p 61 linear feet of open 1 ditch would be placed / Y -- 119 _in. sia._ under new bridge. z r�� ---- .. IIIIII"Prill171/4 . , 6 .. . , \ \_ F • `- •--,,;=,-.1=:—.n...--- V l ( firr]], rfic' i '', _ , ,. Yi4116 iiii ME dinit Ill alit _. ma . a El ' mal _ �n a!'-±k* ; J!, Lk MN I�1 lit' V1IIII1 . 1Pi'. : ' all ^� ill la sii .� ' is �� _A •• MIN - massaissoinagi • . „.t I_oCc3tI0 Map _ a, �.:,_ • e.. y 0 300 • ---- ., ii e% � .' I t Feet 1 � , • et , --'l ! , `° - North • III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-182 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS III information, cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-71 Oligarchy Ditch Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND f ,►..� 'a . � I " Historical Resources ' '�. r . g Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ',. '� �!� .n ----1Preferred Alternative Comm Rail ROW Boundary .4, ,.s...� ■frb., saw -- 5BL.4832.28 Resource Boundary __ ir — Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint Pr i a Commuter Rail Design - y -1.1111 a r b Jim Parcel Boundaries M.. Bridge Guardrails ' ' el it '. a� , • • 11111111111111 N i ki Pala$0,FIP ' ..: -, Open Gltch would be placed • _ Inside an extended culvert, or 64 Linear Feet Impacted * - : . ,:, p:4 ..._,,,, ' . ` ti Boa 1111 I 4 l -ig- to . �.�Ate.titq - L y`a . tell R sgRy� 4c,..19,- 011 1� 04,00- ow tut suiTht I _..: ..4- .0 Existing culvert a .. i i r a \001 w 'i ' i 4411.: `a \bill T Zson% . 01 - . i • � LN v �_ / lo0 • tbi la �MQgO I RN I * = 1 , �� 1 it -t r Jr i WI C J ' M tY11111414ri .. W y °cationMan i 11171C° • „ 1::, 0 150 I ' Feet Northtrumph, a • 1` a'III _ Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-183 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Kitley House (5BL.9163) Description Location: 846 Atwood Street Longmont Type: Historic Residence Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criteria A, B, &C Use of Kitley House by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component- Commuter Rail: BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA A small strip of land totaling 385 square feet on the eastern edge of the property would be acquired for construction of No use a retaining wall that would prevent greater use of the property Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: A small strip of land totaling 385 square feet on the eastern edge of the property would be used for construction of a retaining wall that would prevent greater use of the property • Resource Description The Kitely House was the home of Rae and Mary Kitely,who both made significant contributions to Longmont's history. Rae was the son of early Longmont pioneers and one of Longmont's most influential citizens. He was a lawyer, a banker, and served for 10 years as mayor of Longmont. The house is also significant for its association with Longmont's residential development from the early to mid 20th century. The house is architecturally notable as a good example of the Craftsman style of architecture. Eligibility Determination The property was initially surveyed in March 2003 and field assessed as eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with Longmont's residential development, under Criterion B for its association with the Kitely's and under Criterion C as a good example of Craftsman architecture. It was re-evaluated in August 2010 and assessed as eligible under those same three criteria. Section 4(f) Use Package A The use associated with commuter rail under Package A would occur along the eastern edge of the property where a very small strip of land totaling 385 sq. ft. (0.01 acre)on the east edge of the property adjacent to the west side of the existing railroad tracks would be acquired for construction of a retaining wall that would prevent a more extensive acquisition from occurring. Removal of this strip of property would not have any impact on the historic association or architectural qualities of the house that make this property historic. Removal of this strip of land would not diminish the architectural or selling characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP. Therefore FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-184 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative The uses associated with commuter rail under the Preferred Alternative would occur along the eastern edge of the property where a very small strip of land totaling 385 sq.ft. (0.01 acre)on the east edge of the property adjacent to the west side of the existing railroad tracks would be acquired for construction of a retaining wall that would prevent a more extensive acquisition from occurring. Removal of this strip of property would not have any impact on the historic association or architectural qualities of the house that make this property historic Removal of this strip of land would not diminish the architectural or setting characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP. Therefore FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-72 for uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A and Preferred Alternative The physical railway template of graded bed, track, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Kitely House • Detailed recording of the affected property in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Appropriate BMPs will be employed ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5485 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-72 Kitely House — Preferred Alternative LEGEND le 4 Historical Resources API— """ _ , _ Preferred Alternative Resource Impact -- ' Preferred Alternative Comm Rail • - • - ROW Boundary 5BL.9163 Property Boundary • 1 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint - Commuter Rail Design 1 Parcel Boundaries 5-5 Bridge Guardials I I11 - 9th Ave /rair r r '� . \ 2111 - , ......„ -i -.i • J/ . 4 • V. . Als- - - Ir. ,, 1; . ..,..... .. .. ..; ... I. . _ i. , _ . , ......„.............. a it ...A .. , , • . /� Area =385 Sq Ft k 1 / I I Acres = O.Ot•Ti 1 ° x i �} , _ 1j* =,,, ' Alf• ASH. - . / , aili _ A .,. _ . location Map ,,, _,� ..„. At I/N , 0 60 ,h, .,r. i . , ill I Feet North 7% ID Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-186 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Big Thompson Ditch (5LR.1729) Description Location: Ditch runs east-west across north Longmont area Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Big Thompson Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component- Commuter Rail: BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA A total of 60 feet placed into a culvert extension No use Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: No use Resource Description The entire ditch (5LR.1729)is ten miles long and is one of the oldest in the area. The 2,216-foot-long segment crosses the BNSF RR just north of SH 402 in Loveland. The ditch parallels the railroad for • 485 feet before turning east and passing under the railroad in a concrete box culvert. The six-foot-wide ditch is concrete lined and west of the railroad and unlined east of the BNSF. Eligibility Determination The ditch is NRHP-eligible due to its ties to the City of Loveland and the successful development of high plains irrigation under Criterion A. The ditch has been realigned and concrete lined, compromising the historic integrity within the setting, and is non-supportive of the greater site. Section 4(f) Use Package A Under Package A the new commuter rail track would be placed east and adjacent to the existing track.At the existing BNSF crossing, the ditch is conveyed underneath the railway in a 35-foot-long culvert pipe. This pipe would be extended and the ditch realigned 60 feet east to accommodate the new track. Part of this length is to alter the ditch outfall from a perpendicular bend as it exits the railroad crossing to a smoother angled alignment for the purpose of preventing ditch erosion during higher flows. Because the qualities that make the entire resource NRHP-eligible have already been compromised by modifications associated with construction of the BNSF railroad and Package A improvements are minor in relative extent, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A would result in no adverse effect to the Big Thompson Ditch. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-73 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Preferred Altemative transportation • improvements. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-187 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A The physical railway template of graded bed,track, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for Big Thompson Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to will be employed ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-188 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. • Figure 5-73 Big Thompson Ditch Package A Use g om P g LEGEND I _ t Historical Resources 1 Package A Resource Impact . -q 1 Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary t i I 5LR 1729.2 Property Boundary L I Package AComm Rail Footprint "t a.41. I I Commuter Rail Design � 1 � -t Parcel Boundaries -, --_' i 7 r - �ar „ ? S - f - I- n +` . I - - imil jell '✓_t libi ''` _ _. . • . ..., I . . .., : i ._ _. .__ J_ . _ > . . .. J ,E W co o New culvert extension of 60 feet. 414 O Total culvert length = 95 feet. lr i I III h is. re ' , Existing Culvert = 35 feet Tong Er 40 -,G Irak*F # 1 I i 14TH SW ST \ s ' f. i 1 k at / iiiirtia , ,� t location Map . f 177N D. 200 Q )1 ' i'Ii 1 Feet North 0 , ! is ,-, II Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-189 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Great Western Sugar Factory (5BL.513) Description Location: 11939 and 11801 Sugarmill Road Type: Historic buildings/historic district Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Great Western Sugar by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro A total of 0.33 acre would be used for No use pedestrian walkway Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: No use Resource Description The Great Western Sugar Factory is located at 11939 and 11801 Sugarmill Road in Longmont. This sugar beet processing factory was built in 1903 and operated into the 1970s. The 3.72-acre factory site contains several beet processing buildings,as well as industrial features, including storage silos located north of • Sugarmill Road. Eligibility Determination The Great Western Sugar Factory(5BL.513)is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its significant role in the very important sugar beet industry in Colorado, as well as its major contribution to the economic development of the Longmont area. Section 4(f) Use Package A Proposed commuter rail improvements in the vicinity of the Great Western Sugar Factory site include a station platform, park-&-Ride lots, and a pedestrian walkway from the station platform to the south parking lot. The station platform intrudes slightly into the north edge of the sugar factory site, and the proposed pedestrian walkway extends from the platform through the northwestern corner of the property to access a proposed parking lot that would be located just west of the factory site. These direct impacts amount to 0.33 acre. None of the buildings or other standing industrial features that contribute to the property's significance would be affected by these commuter rail facilities. Because the proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter architectural or setting characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-74 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-190 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Preferred Alternative There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Preferred Alternative transportation improvements. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A This property is located near the SH 119 and 3rd Avenue intersection. The original proposed commuter rail alignment was designed to run along Sugar Mill Road,through the historic property. To minimize use of the property, the alignment was shifted north to the existing Great Western Railroad right-of-way, and parking features were relocated from the historic property. Mitigation Measures for the Great Western Sugar Factory • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-191 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-74 Great Western Sugar Factory Package A Use ait-LEGEND ~ 1- 41._ • Historical Resources I• 40. 1 Package A Resource Impact Is '• • ,., u Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary R r, + • a'4V a 5BL513 & 5BL7606 Boundaries r .. '' ---a. Package A Comm Rail Footprint �` t? --.= t_ NNW on Commuter Rail Design tulip, ilis--4,0 ..., ._ t . - .N446' - 4......aswl —�� Parcel Boundaries �o ;>� iiii • , ill/ La)''Sy ,, figiihs 1 ., RODGERS RD - -.-...! . , .- -- - - - � Parking . _ ;--._..: �dMP TOO! i It/a% . . _ n SW . ,Y - ibir a. P ., i i tr. Pelt.: r a L- itIII li ` _ 5BL.7606 Novartis Seeds I Parking •Area = 14,575 Sq. Ftrt. _ _ r. •.„, I I Acres = 0.33 ',s Pedestrian access & platform areas. I, — , ' All features are at-grade except ,•• ' �'` _ �• �-'"' overpass for pedestrian crossing. , ' i M "'1 � , • ii_ I ( ,I . lt 5BL.513 .. Lail r � •� Great Western Sugar Plant a • r'::. _-�` '� '1 .:_... .. . ' i I r • r I �. % • it ,ie• a - aw . %, . , : , , .„..,.: , a .4. , . . .1101at, . . s I il * - , r 41.I Pr - 1 f 0 . i .,.1.,.; .,..,,,,>...,..;..„,.,....tti ,I J, z Asa- tik. h owe Gitw ' E Lilc. ti .U. lit n M . I . Al I . '.:* . .( t ' :1) issor - 0 300 17"\I A- imi ttttttttr -1 Feet s North r III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-192 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Sandstone Ranch (5WL.712) Description Location: T2N/R68W, SH 119 just east of Longmont Type: Historic district Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Longmont Significance: NRHP-listed, Criteria A, B, and C Use of Sandstone Ranch by Package Package Package A g e B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: 120th to Denver Longmont to FasTracks North Metro A total of 2.17 acres of unused land within the historic district used for new railroad No use right-of-way Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: A total of 2.17 acres of unused land within the historic district used for new railroad right-of-way. Resource Description • The Sandstone Ranch is located on SH 119 just east of Longmont. The ranch is associated with Morse Coffin, one of the early settlers in this area. Morse Coffin settled in Boulder County in 1859 and became a preeminent agriculturalist and co-founder of the first public school district in Colorado.The City of Longmont now owns the ranch property, which is now designated Sandstone Ranch Park. Portions of the former ranch have been altered recently by gravel mining, post-mining reclamation, and multi-use recreational development by the City of Longmont. The only intact ranchland in the northern portion of the property is a riparian corridor surrounding the Union Reservoir Outlet Ditch/Coffin Spring Gulch Ditch (5WL.2877.1). Eligibility Determination The ranch was NRHP-listed in 1984 under Criteria A, B, and C. The Sandstone Ranch is eligible under Criterion A because of its important association with early settlement and agricultural development in Weld County. It is also eligible under Criterion B because of its direct association with Morse H. Coffin, an important historical figure, and under Criterion C because of the architectural significance of the Coffin farmhouse. The historic district boundary is currently being evaluated for re-definition to exclude the areas modified by construction of public recreational facilities and areas modified by gravel mining. Section 4(f) Use Package A The proposed commuter rail facilities along SH 119 would necessitate acquisition of new right-of-way within the extreme northern edge of the Sandstone Ranch historic district. This land would be needed to provide space for the new commuter rail bed,tracks, and ballast. The area subject to direct impacts comprises 2.17 acres. In addition to the small size of the impacted area, the northern portion of the historic district has lost most of its integrity due to recent development of sports fields by the City of Longmont. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-193 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • The historic ranch buildings would be located approximately 0.5 mile from passing trains and,therefore, would not be affected by noise and vibration impacts. The commuter rail tracks would run along the edge of the northem portion of the historic district that has lost nearly all integrity. No indirect effects are expected that would harm the function, setting, atmosphere, or attributes that render this district NRHP- eligible. Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-75 for uses associated with Package A. Package B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative widening of SH 119 to accommodate one commuter rail track would necessitate acquisition of new right-of-way within the extreme northern edge of the Sandstone Ranch. This land would be needed to provide space for the new commuter rail bed,tracks, and ballast. The area subject to use comprises 1.45 acres. In addition to the small size of the use,the northern portion of the site has lost most of its integrity due to recent development of sports fields by the City of Longmont(see Figure 5-76). The historic ranch buildings are located too far away to be affected by noise and vibration impacts from passing trains. The commuter rail tracks would run along the edge of the northern portion of the historic district that has lost nearly all integrity. No indirect effects are expected which would harm the function, setting, atmosphere, or attributes that render this district NRHP-eligible. The proposed transportation improvements would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. For all of these reasons, FHWA and CDOT have determined • that the Preferred Alternative would result in no adverse effect to the resource. It is the intent of the FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding Package A and Preferred Alternative A retaining wall was included on the south side of the proposed tracks to mitigate use of the park. Otherwise, all railway template widths are reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for the Sandstone Ranch • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Retaining walls used to minimize surface use. • Operation of recreational facilities during construction will be maintained. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-194 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • _ information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5 75 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use LEGEND ,,.--;-.77-0-9-1.-; Historical Resources �' +' In Package A Resource Impact - PEAK AVE � Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 1 5WL 712 Property Boundary . . • : I I ] Package A Comm Rail Footprint 5 ' ' 1 r ICommuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries • 4. t ,e • I. J - —.----- -- •:COLORFUL AVE • far. It # , I illi kit il 0 i..- t ' !, %lel - _• � _� illy 'Sir "'�••.: _ ' _ - - _ __ice s•�.W �c 'el jilt _� N' LiIH / L e: t . • • Att. y S :�, Area = 94,337 Sq. Ft .� 4 a �� t Acres = 2.17 _ i . mot 1 . ..-Ilir /•• / , 1 - , :-- T_flt ) � 1 i . , . l� <, . . _, , 4, alli.- , .1h ,„ , :,', i dim. ,., .44 ,.• 1i t '. moi d• r _ ._____, i`i to; ,. ....,...- 1 'C lit• r tLi "f ' c Location Map. f, 0 500 �� : t Imimi Feet North ),` 1i� / .' i!r " • �+ '�• _ • ` ' # 0 ' i - , . --... • • -11 '11, ' . , , Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-195 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation111 Figure 5-76 Sandstone Ranch Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND ' ., . ►�i��if-�?tiF_. CAI ._ + Historical Resources PEAK AVE - {-, e.. r Preferred Alternative Resource Impact "' ` Preferred Alternative Comm Rail r^ im ROW Boundary a 5W1_. 712 Property Boundary ii i1 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint . , , L Commuter Rail Design -I 'I u 9 ! ' t' 4' C � . Parcel Bounder ' v , , • R- es �♦ Bridge Guardrails 3' • _ _ ;:. - -= COLORFUL AVE Ai , . ,,,,.... • , - I Ili rt . : • li R " Ill 4: 4 -_ lz ir -y'- 'Or .. '4 - - rAl Atr R �,` • - ate_ : -- �t.� . �_'..-Ail ° _. .••- . , � a all - = _ �- 119 ,••••0 1 " , i p‘i ..- - I L ..0 , :01 _ ill . ,..4 . .,..,- --', .._,_,, , . . .) ‘ -iii..i.cf-- i a .. . . 4 r • I 7. asia' x.41.' Area = 63,043 Sq. Ft . ._ �, NS .. *r e ' Acres - 1.45 ... • .y .. kii). --1 - i ; IL \•,t_ - I]r j; ..•� ditsr 4- ! .-- / Ir - .C t - - '�- I—,d_—"--sl 1 • n p f I _ -• r c.- 'Aitfit T. " i 1y r - - ,. F f r Location Map I It. , B 500 y/! - r ~ i L� i I Feet ~ North • . "� 1 • •t z�,. . _ter , - . ..4,,,,I, L II Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-196 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Boulder and Weld County Ditch (5WL.5461) Description Location: T2N/R68W, Sec 28 NW Y of NW' of SE Y of NE Y (West end) T2N/R68W, Sec 28 NW'/ of NW%of SE '/ of NW 1/4(East end) Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Boulder and Weld County Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 120th to Denver A total of 63 feet of open ditch would be placed No use into a new culvert Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: A total of 63 feet of open ditch would be placed into a new culvert. Resource Description • The entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch is approximately five miles long and draws water from a head gate on Boulder Creek. The ditch was constructed in 1871 and remains in use,supplying irrigation water for agricultural use.The segment of the earthen irrigation ditch passing through the commuter rail corridor is approximately 684 feet(0.13 mile)long, 20 feet wide, and 6.5 feet deep. The surrounding land is rural in character. Eligibility Determination The Boulder and Weld County Ditch is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the early development of agriculture in Weld County. The segment of the ditch within the project APE retains sufficient integrity of location, setting,feeling, and use to support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A In the vicinity of the Boulder and Weld County Ditch,the commuter rail alignment closely parallels CR 7, beneath which the ditch crosses in a culvert. The commuter rail design would include a new concrete box culvert to accommodate the historic ditch.Approximately 63 linear feet of the ditch would be directly impacted by being placed in a culvert beneath the commuter rail facility. Construction of the concrete culvert structure would likely require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities, resulting in a temporary occupancy. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch. It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See • Figure 5-77 for uses associated with Package A. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.197 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Packane B There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B transportation improvements. Preferred Alternative In the vicinity of the Boulder and Weld County Ditch,the Preferred Alternative commuter rail alignment closely parallels WCR 7, beneath which the ditch crosses in a culvert. The commuter rail design would include a new CBC to accommodate the historic ditch.Approximately 63 linear feet of the ditch would be used by being placed in a culvert beneath the commuter rail facility(see Figure 5-78). Construction of the concrete culvert structure would likely require temporary access to the historic property for equipment access and culvert installation activities. The ditch would likely be diverted during demolition of the old culvert and installation of the replacement culvert, but would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction.All disturbance caused by construction equipment or activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although a portion of the open ditch would be placed in a culvert,this change affects only a very small percentage of the entire linear resource. FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the entire Boulder and Weld County Ditch. It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding The physical railway template of grade bed, rail track, and ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. The new culvert carries the ditch along the shortest distance to cross the railway footprint. Mitigation Measures for the Boulder and Weld County Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-198 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation.III Figure 5-77 Boulder and Weld County Ditch Package A Use I 11 N I - HistLEGEorica Reources u — PackageD AA: Resource Im Packagel s A Comm Rail ROW __ 0 5WL.5461 . 1 Property BoundarypactBoundary AA r 1 Package A Comm Rail Footprint 14 - - { t 'ppCulvert i t a4 . 7 Il .... . . : ." • • C\ at i .- . i— — r 1' 63 Linear Feet Impacted r" — fl- i . T I j ' I -f At , i i h - .:. iii - i — -*. ! (E----r-L.,,,,,1,_ • - I 1,,. , . , }44:;11,7 L. : . t '' Location M p r 0 o 300 la} I Feet North _IILZ2IIINNIIIrIll .. dirallW--- Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-199 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-78 Boulder and Weld County Ditch Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND Historical Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact — Preferred Alternative Comm Rail .... . IN ROW Boundary — �' " ,,. 5WL.5461 . 1 Resource Boundary '-- , 4,=ti! • .- ,1—] 1 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint — a - ' ICommuter Rail Design ' I - I ; .Parcel Boundaries " �* I Itl�� Bridge Guardrails - - ' ` — — y- r TI K i Existing Culvert ' H 4 r . . 10* t 35 ft long. ` • 1 - i / ,,, . __ __ .. . . . , . _ H 111 .._ .1 N.L. \ - mh Open ditch would be placed - inside new culvert, ' _ - 63 Linear Feet Impacted y„� • r K \ -4- • . , i r„ PEE } _ I f ! -- i �c-`>-- k I - -,_._- 1j al — t.,` Vel 1 — 1 istJ ' sit; 1�1 • 0 ix r — it — Location Map . - - — Z t, . , ' 0 .� VIN 1 0 300 k'�_ Imillllllt 1 Feet North N .; - soot.. ...._ ti. al _- phi► - 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-200 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Rural Ditch (5WL.1974) Description Location: T2N/R68W, SW Y.Sec 15, located near CR 7 south of Rinn, CO and 600 feet south of CR 2050. Type: Historic ditch Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of Rural Ditch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 120th to Denver A total of 130 feet of open ditch would be No use placed into a new culvert Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: A total of 108 feet of open ditch would be placed into a new culvert. Resource Description The entire Rural Ditch is approximately four miles long. Two segments of the ditch are present within the APE. Segment 5WL.1974.1 crosses 1-25 diagonally from southwest to northeast immediately north of • SH 119, passing under SH 119 and 1-25 in two existing culverts. The segment length is 3,327 feet, and is a 10-foot wide earthen ditch. Segment 5WL.1974.3 of the historic Rural Ditch crosses northwest to southeast within the project area. This segment(5WL.1974.3)intercepts waters of Idaho Creek at the southwest edge of the APE. The excavated 5-foot-deep, earthen ditch segment is 1,253 feet long and 20 feet wide. Both banks of the ditch areas are covered with grass. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination The entire ditch (SWL.1974)was determined to be not eligible in 1993. The entire Rural Ditch is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A because of its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in northeastern Colorado. Segment 5WL.1974.3 follows the original historic alignment of the ditch, and therefore supports the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Segment 5WL.1974.1 is modified by adjacent development and road crossings at SH 119 and 1-25 and does not support the eligibility of the entire resource. Section 4(f) Use Packaae A Segment 5WL.1974.3: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast trajectory across this historic ditch segment.Approximately 130 feet of open ditch would need to be placed in a culvert beneath the new railroad embankment, ballast, bed, and tracks, resulting in a direct use of the resource. Installation of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities, resulting in temporary occupancy. The ditch would remain operational, and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction. Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert,this change affects only a very small percentage of the overall linear resource. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-201 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Segment 5WL.1974.1: Package A is in a non-improvement zone and results in no impacts. Approximately 130 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment location (5WL.1974.9). Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment would be compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package A transit improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the historic resource 5WL.1974 (Rural Ditch). (It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence.)See Figure 5-79 for uses associated with Package A. Package B Segment 5WL.1974.1: Under Package B, modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new BRT lanes in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway,there would be no additional impact to the ditch segment. The ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, and there is no new use expected to result from the installations planned by Package B. Preferred Alternative Segment 5WL.1974.3: The proposed new commuter rail line would pass in a northwest-southeast alignment across this historic ditch segment.Approximately 108 feet of open ditch would need to be placed in a culvert beneath the new railroad embankment, ballast, bed and tracks. Installation of the new culvert would likely require temporary use of the historic property for equipment access and minor construction activities. The ditch would remain operational and irrigation water would be protected from encroachment by construction.All disturbances caused by construction equipment or construction activities would be temporary in nature and affected areas would be restored to their original condition and appearance. Although the segment of open ditch would be placed in a culvert, this change affects only a very small • percentage of the overall linear resource. Segment 5WL.1974.1: Under the Preferred Alternative modifications to the center median of the highway would incorporate new TELs in this area. Because the ditch is already conveyed underneath the area of highway there would be no additional use of to the ditch segment. Because the ditch already lacks integrity of alignment and setting, no additional indirect impacts are expected to result from the installations planned by the Preferred Alternative. Under the Preferred Alternative 108 feet of open ditch would be placed inside a culvert at one segment locality. Temporary construction impacts would occur during culvert installation and highway construction activity. Because the physical integrity of the channel of the ditch segment has been previously compromised by placing it in a culvert, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Preferred Alternative improvements would result in no adverse effect with respect to the historic resource 5WL.1974(Rural Ditch). It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis pending SHPO concurrence. See Figure 5-80 for uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding The physical railway template of graded bed, track, and underlying ballast has been reduced to the minimum width necessary to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards.The new culvert does not alter the historic alignment of the ditch.A perpendicular crossing of the railroad footprint would minimize the culvert length, but adversely affect the historic ditch alignment. Mitigation Measures for the Rural Ditch • Detailed recording of the affected ditch in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society standards for Level II Documentation is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Maintain operation of irrigation ditch during construction. • Appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs will be employed to ensure protection of resource during • construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-202 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-79 Rural Ditch Package A Use ; LEGEND s dI' Historical Resources Package A Resource Impact 4:Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary � _ t r 4 7 liiii . Ilit 5WL. 1974.3 Property Boundary a ‘'4 , [ 1 Package A Comm Rail Footprint lit rCommuter Rail Design • W C T'�— Parcel Boundaries ■--.■ Bridge i Culvert I s SF I. H : H •„ t 4 r ~ ~1 f • llit I• : : II' '3/4441 ' . . :,. :: _ : : . 41 4-- pr I i (AP PO la . f - . ii , 41 . ..'"*.ir . 1:' 111.0b. 14illia , : : 1 Irp '1' i otsiit , . . - 411 i 11 • � - .. Open ditch would he placed inside of a new culvert: !V I t !II ' :I 94 i 130 Linear Feet Impacted v i CI / c• Ill,ee.�' fi : : ►' • t _ sk ,. V I f,_a . T- r_ _ , . , . , , ,ir 1. '4,11 i ., _ - ji,...rt - � r;% .., . - •--_ I 4 Ma jt IC, st- ..; \ Ill / w, - i.r _.`. l '- i ,, Location Map\, . rt_ I" I t - _ - - - 1 FN , .4 a 0 200 loaf I Feet North -I ' • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-203 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-80 Rural Ditch Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND i `wr/,kr " -4 Historical Resources r r *y > 4, lip.: :Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ��. �` f-' I .. ,, Preferred Alternative Comm Rail 1 /"il 4fr : �► , ROW Boundary , ► _ �`++ SWL 1974.3 Resource Bourdary _ CR 2050 Preferred Alternative Comm Rail Footprint — 'tip illeb 4 II Commuter Rail DesignIP!Atr `,I i , C Parcel Boundaries W.I. Bridge Guardrails t } t J "'r a ' y I• I { L r ,orie.wr ' r 4,..., Ii "It, . r , i « r . . . FF iF K Al r -,1! , •. It ii T j i , 1 : .r ` _,1Ill a.c.- :- Open ditch would be placed 11. " inside of a new culvert Pa: 108 Linear Feet Impacted - t / , • - -- ..;.a. �/ Nri tiv :i_ . di' II _ ti , . .ktp.: .... _ ___ So � i Existing Culvert --- ./ � , - �, 36 ft long ami. r � r a • 11 4,4 ,... . L i . , ... . e le I I, L t i / t , ,,1 a . t II .r..^ L �`• r n : i 7S, - t •1� i r j All .1., _ , atl t Location Map--i--- - . - ►kr 1iIIt\h. l ! i. i f 0 200 /\ - nai 6m. 1 Feet North . - - ra / III Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-204 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Union Pacific Railroad, Dent Branch (5WL.1317, 5AM.472) Description Location: T1N/R68W, NW%Sec 24,to T1S/R68W, NE '/ Sec 12 Type: Abandoned historic railroad Section 106 Effect Finding: No adverse effect Ownership: Private Significance: NRHP-Eligible, Criterion A Use of UPRR, Dent Branch by Package Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component-Commuter Rail: B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro Fort Collins to DIA 4.89-mile abandoned segment modemized for double-track commuter rail operations, No use 200 linear feet impacted Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail: 4.89-mile abandoned segment modernized for double-track commuter rail operations. Resource Description • The Dent Branch is a 39-mile-long section of the UPRR that ran through Weld and Adams Counties. The Weld County segment 5WL.1317.11 of the Dent Branch runs 2.9 miles within the project APE. The railway segment is abandoned, but rails, ties, and the ballasted roadbed remain in relatively good condition.A 3,500-foot freight bypass on the Dent Branch, located south of the Boulder Valley-Dent Branch junction, once consisted of a multiple-track complex. South of that bypass,the track reverts to a single-track alignment. Segment 5AM.472.1 is a 1.9-mile-long railway segment that follows the original single-track alignment in Adams County. Most of this segment has been abandoned. The surrounding area is rural in character. Eligibility Determination The OAHP has officially declared the UPRR-Dent Branch eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its important role in the development of the agricultural economy of the Front Range of Colorado.Although abandoned, these two railway segments retain integrity of location and association, and, therefore, support the eligibility of the entire linear resource. Section 4(f) Use Package A The proposed new commuter rail would join this existing historic rail line by approaching from the northwest, then crossing over to the east side of the historic railroad,which it would closely parallel and follow southward. The commuter rail would utilize a double-track configuration, using the existing track alignment and adding a parallel track alignment following the historic UPRR Dent Branch (5WL.1317.1 and 5AM.472.1) from the way at St. Vrains junction southward. Where the new commuter rail line crosses the Dent Branch, there would be use of as many as 200 feet of track by the replacement of existing"through rail"with switching tracks and associated apparatus (see Figure 541). Although one of the new commuter rail tracks would run along the historic alignment,the existing historic bed, ballast, and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-205 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • A continuous 4.89 miles would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade, and an additional new track, 15 feet away and parallel to the existing historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new but compatible rail use and infrastructure elements to the historic setting. The proposed transportation improvements associated with Package A would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP, FHWA and CDOT have determined that Package A commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic UPRR Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). Package B No direct or indirect impacts would occur at any segment locations. Therefore, FHWA and CDOT have determined that the Package B commuter rail improvements would result in no historic properties affected with respect to the historic UPRR Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis, pending SHPO concurrence. Preferred Alternative The proposed new commuter rail line would join this existing historic rail line by approaching from the northwest. The commuter rail would utilize the existing track alignment following the historic UPRR-Dent Branch from the way at St. Vrains junction southward. There would be no use as a result of the Preferred Alternative.Although the new commuter rail would run along the historic alignment,the existing historic bed, ballast and grade along the entire affected extent of the historic railway would be preserved. Deteriorated ties and abandoned rail would be replaced as required to meet safety and design standards. The Preferred Alternative would lay new track on the existing bed, ballast, and grade of the UPRR-Dent Branch as described in segment 5WL.1317.11. The historic railroad bed, ballast, and grade would remain intact. The installation of new sets of tracks would be compatible with the historic use of the railroad line, and would not substantially diminish or alter the function, alignment, character, or other attributes that render the • railroad NRHP-eligible. A continuous 4.89 miles would be reoccupied with new track on the existing bed, ballast and grade of the historic alignment. New commuter rail tracks along the transportation corridor would introduce new, but compatible rail use and infrastructural elements to the historic setting. The proposed transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would not substantially diminish or alter characteristics that render the property eligible for the NRHP. FHWA and CDOT therefore have determined that the Preferred Alternative commuter rail improvements would result in no adverse effect to the historic UPRR-Dent Branch (5WL.1317 and 5AM.472). It is the intent of FHWA and CDOT to make a finding of de minimis, pending SHPO concurrence. Planning and Measures Included to Reach a De Minimis Finding No measures to minimize harm were included because the addition of new track in this vicinity would result in additional project costs.Approximately one new mile of track would be needed to avoid this resource, resulting in an additional project cost of$2.5 million. In addition, new track parallel to this track would result in additional impacts to wetlands. No additional measures to minimize harm were possible. Mitigation Measures for UPRR Dent Branch • Detailed recording of the affected railway, in accordance with the Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation, is recommended pending SHPO concurrence. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-206 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-81 UPRR-Dent Branch Package A Use LEGEND j lir Historical Resources i Package A Resource Impact /' Package A Comm Rail ROW Boundary 'lr�. 3 ii, 5WL. 1317. 11 Property Boundary / Package A Comm Rail Footprint IlCommuter Rail Design Parcel Boundaries IF.. Bridge / Culvert l NNNNTI\INks. ik t , ` :j` f N . " C . , \ . .. ' ,� it • 41/4.\ - u ;; _ I ` &C/fc j Raiirpac, , / 4,;• •f a lill , _ iii \ _ _ 200 Linear Feet Impacted i t t _ sia. i o r i r t , ��, a t zr j tfiFYl' 21,4i / o • 1 . O 1 ; .a. - Location Map, t ., i _, a / 0 300 l A Feet North j Ill / Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-207 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5.5.2 De minimis for Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge In order to be protected under Section 4(f), public parks and recreation facilities must be considered "significant," as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over them. Section 6009 amended Title 23 USC Section 138 states: "With respect to parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis use only if the Secretary has determined, after public notice and opportunity for public review and comment, that the transportation use or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection under this section and the finding of the Secretary has received concurrence from the officials with jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge." The Section 4(f) parks and recreational resources were identified based on the process outlined above. A finding of de minimis use may be made when the use of the resource is minimal and does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). (Questions and answers on the Application of Section 4(f) de minimis Impact Criteria, and the 23 CFR 774.) The finding of a de minimis impact on recreational and wildlife resources can be made when: 1. The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify • the resource for protection under Section 4(f). 2. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA's or CDOT's intent to make the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). 3. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource. Initial agency coordination has began with the officials having jurisdiction over the properties prior to releasing the Draft EIS for public comment. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS. No comments were received regarding these impacts. In addition, the public is being requested requested to comment on the impacts to section 4(f) resources as part of the Final EIS. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings will also made at the Final EIS public hearings. The officials with jurisdiction for the park, recreation, and wildlife refuge properties with proposed de minimis impacts have provided written concurrence that the transportation use of that property does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify that property for protection under Section 4(f). Concurrence letters were received from all of these officials with jurisdiction these are included in Appendix D. Pending public comment on the impacts, FHWA will make their formal finding in the ROD. Table 5-6 lists the Section 4(f) properties that are recommended for de minimis determination. Section 4(f) use of the properties has been evaluated based on current preliminary • engineering design. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-208 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-6 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Parks,Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge Map Resource Package A: Package B: Preferred Alternative: Id# Name A-H2 GP Highway B-H2 Tolled Express 1-25 Highway Improvements: Lanes:SH 14 to SH 60 Improvements;Express SH 14 to SH 60 Bus 1 Arapaho Incidental use of high- Incidental use of high- Incidental use of high- Bend Natural activity area and activity area and 5.11 acres activity area and Area 4.28 acres of land of land adjacent to highway 3.07 acres of land adjacent to highway right-of-way; increase in adjacent to highway right- right-of-way; increase in overhead shading of Cache of-way; increase in overhead shading of la Poudre River vegetation overhead shading of Cache la Poudre due to bridge deck shading; Cache la Poudre River vegetation due to reclaim and revegetate vegetation due to bridge bridge deck shading; demolition area. deck shading; reclaim and reclaim and revegetate revegetate demolition demolition area. area. 2 Archery A total of 0.09 acre by A total of 0.14 acre by No Use Range incorporation of very incorporation of very narrow Natural Area narrow 400-foot-long 400-foot-long strip of strip of unused land. No unused land. No features or features or amenities amenities impacted. impacted. • 3 Big A total of 0.11 acre by A total of 0.24 acre by No Use Thompson incorporation of narrow incorporation of narrow Ponds State 750-foot-and 200-foot- 750-foot-and 200-foot-long Wildlife Area long strips of land strips of land adjacent to adjacent to 1-25 due to 1-25 due to ramp and land ramp and land additions. No impacts to additions. No impacts features, amenities or to features, amenities wildlife area. or wildlife area. A-H3 GP Highway B-H3 Tolled Express 1-25 Highway Improvements: Lanes:SH 60 to E-470 Improvements SH 60 to E-470 4 Little A total of 2.04 acres by A total of 2.03 acres by A total of 1.31 acres Thompson incorporation of incorporation of 600-foot by adjacent to the river River 600-foot by 100-foot 100-foot area adjacent to incorporated into Corridor area adjacent to the the river due to lane and transportation river due to lane and ramp additions and new infrastructure due to lane ramp additions and new access.A portion of the trail and ramp additions and access. A portion of the would be located under new access. A portion of trail would be located bridge structure. No the trail would be located under bridge structure. impacts to facilities or under bridge structure. No No impacts to facilities amenities. impacts to facilities or or amenities. amenities. Note: McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park(Map Id number 5)is included in Table 5-4. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-209 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation • Table 5-6 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge (cont'd) Map Resource Package A: Package B: Preferred Alternative: Id# Name A-T2 Transit B-T2 Transit Component- Commuter Rail Component- BRT:Fort Collins to DIA Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 6 Sandstone A total of 2.17 acres of No use A total of 1.45 acres of Ranch entire property. entire property. Approximately 40 to Approximately 40 to 60 feet of sidewalk 60 feet of sidewalk would require relocation would require relocation and replacement. No and replacement. No other features or other features or amenities would be amenities would be impacted. impacted. 7 RR Alignment Direct impacts to No Use No Use (21 to Hwy approximately 66)Trail 1,510 feet of trail. Temporary detour would be provided, or a relocated trail would be • constructed east of the existing trail before the current trail alignment is demolished. Would result in de minimis use. A-H4 Structure B-H4 Tolled Express 1-25 Highway Upgrades:E-470 to Lanes:E470 to 70th Ave. Improvements and US 36 Express Bus 8 120th Avenue No Use Replace existing box Same as Package B Transit culvert with new box Station culvert approximately Underpass 50 feet longer to accommodate 1-25 widening. Temporary closure of trail would be required during culvert replacement, and trail tie-in to the new longer culvert would require minor realignment of trail. Otherwise, construction activities would not modify or affect trail. Overall aesthetic quality of trail would not be substantially diminished. The function • and purpose of trail would be unchanged. Would result in de minimis use. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-210 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5-6 De Minimis Use of Section 4(f) Parks, Recreational Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge (cont'd) Map Resource Package A: Package B: Preferred Alternative: Id# Name 9 Farmers No use Replace existing underpass Same as Package B Highline with new underpass Canal Trail approximately 87 feet longer to accommodate I-25 widening. Temporary closure of trail would be required during construction. Trail would not be modified during construction activities. Overall aesthetic quality of trail would not be substantially diminished. Function and purpose of trail would be unchanged. Would result in de minimis use. 10 Niver Creek No Use Replace existing underpass Same as Package B Open Space/ with an approximately Niver Creek 1,720-foot long by 11-foot- • Trail wide pedestrian overpass and reroute trail through new overpass. Overpass would be completed prior to demolition of underpass; therefore, no trail closure would be required. Overall aesthetic quality of trail would not be substantially diminished. The overall experience, function, and purpose of trail would be unchanged. Trail would be permanently altered and rerouted. Would result in de minimis use. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-211 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Arapaho Bend Natural Area (Map ID Number 1) Description Location: West of 1-25, north of Harmony Road, Fort Collins, along Poudre River Size: 278 acres Type: Recreation resource Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Fishing ponds, boating, trails, parking areas. Usage/Patronage: Public, no data available for annual patronage Relationship to Other Resources: Segment of Cache la Poudre River runs through the park. Arapaho Bend is one of 37 Natural Areas in Fort Collins. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Fort Collins Significance: This park is valuable for its natural resources, recreational opportunities,and as a scenic entryway into the city. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community,the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Arapaho Bend Natural Area by Package A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 SH 14 to SH 60 4.28 acres; incidental use of high- 5.11 acres; incidental use of high- activity area and land adjacent to activity area and land adjacent to • highway right-of-way; increase in highway right-of-way; increase in overhead shading due to widened overhead shading due to widened bridge deck; demolition area would be bridge deck; demolition area would revegetated and reclaimed; bank be revegetated and reclaimed; bank stabilization along Cache la Poudre stabilization along Cache la Poudre River; no change in activities or use River; no change in activities or use areas areas Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements and Express Bus: 3.07 acres; incidental use of high-activity area and land adjacent to highway right-of- way; increase in overhead shading due to widened bridge deck; demolition area would be revegetated and reclaimed; bank stabilization along Cache la Poudre River; no change in activities or use areas. Resource Description This 278-acre, multi-use park along the Cache la Poudre River includes ponds for fishing, trails, and boating, as well as three public parking areas and two gated areas for vehicles with special access. The property was acquired by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas in 1995. Section 4(f) Use Package A Section 4(f)use at this location would result from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north of the existing lot used by CDOT in the northwest quadrant of Harmony Road and 1-25. The City of Fort Collins had • previously negotiated an easement in this area of 4.03 acres anticipating future expansion of the lot, which Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.212 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. would remove this use area from Section 4(f)use. The proposed parking lot expansion,the addition of a new ramp, and improvements to the bridge over Cache la Poudre River would use a total of 8.15 acres, of which 4.03 acres is part of the easement,totaling a net use of 4.28 acres. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility.Additionally, access off Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out movements only. 1-25 is proposed to be widened with both Packages A and B and the Preferred Alternative. See Figure 5-82. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Package B I-25 is proposed to be widened with all alternatives; however, Package B is wider than Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Other design improvements include ramp reconfiguration to address existing substandard ramp conditions related to safety and traffic operations. Uses at this location would be similar to Package A resulting from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north and the addition of the ramp and the bridge modifications at Cache la Poudre River.The proposed parking lot expansion would exceed the easement,totaling a net use of 5.11 acres. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access off Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out movements only. See Figure 5-82. FHWA and CDOTpropose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of • the resource. Preferred Alternative 1-25 is proposed to be widened with all alternatives; however, the Preferred Alternative would use less land from this area than the other alternatives. Design improvements include ramp reconfiguration to address existing substandard ramp conditions related to safety and traffic operations. Uses at this location would be similar to Package A resulting from the expansion of a carpool lot to the north and the addition of the ramp and the bridge modifications at Cache la Poudre River. The proposed parking lot expansion would exceed the easement, totaling a net use of 3.07 acres. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Additionally, access off Harmony Road would be improved from the existing one-lane entrance to a four-lane entrance with right-in and right-out movements only. See Figure 5-83. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The proposed ramp improvements are to the minimum standard requirements to minimize right-of-way width and, therefore, minimizing Section 4(f) use of this property.Approximately 2,000-foot-long retaining walls would be included along the Harmony Road/I-25 interchange ramps north of Harmony Road to minimize use.The walls would extend up to the bridge over the Cache la Poudre River to minimize uses at the northern extent of the property. Mitigation Measures for Arapaho Bend Natural Area • Reclaim and revegetate in-kind the areas where the existing bridges are removed. • • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-213 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation transportationIII Figure 5-82 Arapaho Bend Natural Area Package A and B Use re LEGEND _ 11F- --t, gm 11- — 0 Fr es i 022) Package A Park Impacts 4 ISS3Package B Park Impacts 441---4.\- ...., iii} Q4' • • r - ` • � 0 • i \ \ 4 t ‘ 1 • \\. . Ilk ,Oa 0 Y n 1 i a • et. ti. Ilk ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA 4ID ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA '1 .. .. * A. 40. f .- Package A . '� aa 4.28 Acres �J . s I Mill= q Package B 5. 11 Acres ! a I , i 1 /27/ * `t. . a • * 4 < Opprill REA b, it 2 ...,:. . , tom .. Iw . i . . . .e%se I1it o , lit WV iiiiiiissil .i. r...' I ,,,•�E.HARMONY.RD A •, '5. w . - . Location Map ilk .'� >�s. ; , ,. j� Z' ` . t , I ,p H � •p - alp -. t ', . ♦ ;sir 1 ' /' • r f 1 I l' 7-ti 0 800 .� I FeetInt - 0 Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-214 Final EIS NORTH I 25 August 2011 EIS Ilk Ill information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5_83 Arapaho Bend Natural Area Preferred Alternative Use � ; 9 LEGEND t .. Park and Recreation Resources 1 \ '\ • .4.; C- 1 tg`= Preferred Alternative Resource Impact NK, - .‘-; . .. ' : -) I ..., .".: Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary , ��, ! a Arapahoe Bend Natural Area Property Boundary ' t 1 Preferred Alternative I�� Bndge Guardrails EOP "j ® Roadway Features ..IIRetaining Wall `� ► s Parcel Boundaries " Guardrails -. r y a \\\ gairta. .4 I, ' " \\I' , S A ' aa ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA .1, 0 __ .__ . -; ,. ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA • lit. , t Preferred Alternative Total Impacts = 3.07 -r T('j T '\, N I I .:1 I 1 X1.4 . i1 I 1!'._,,.i H. ftf j•/ -*4 4 I • \, , r , 3. v.),.:. '1 v. :.r r . . ..- P. I r ♦ . ` � 1 L.7• .14 " t . i • • A ikk__:_. ---- ' Location Map, w .�.' ja I. 1� . i i •� � 1 ' q•• tT 5'�t � 11: A t� - II :•;;rjr : r. IV I 1`Y ��0 0 800 -7RN ••1 '1. ��J I Feet ; T. North -«. �'� �• _,.,„.., , , Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-215 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Archery Range Natural Area (Map ID Number 2) Description Location: West of 1-25, Fort Collins Size: 50 acres Type: Recreation resource Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Trailhead, parking area, archery circuit station located around natural area. Usage/Patronage: No data Relationship to Other Resources: One of 37 Natural Areas in Fort Collins. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Fort Collins Parks Department Significance: Local site for archery circuit stations. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community,the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Archery Range Natural Area by Package A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 A total of 0.09 acre by incorporation of A total of 0.14 acre by incorporation of very narrow 400-foot-long strip of unused very narrow 400-foot-long strip of unused land. No features or amenities impacted. land. No features or amenities impacted. Preferred Alternative: • No use Resource Description This property was acquired by the City of Fort Collins Utility Department in 1983 and transferred to the City of Fort Collins Parks Department. It is primarily used for recreation,with amenities such as an archery circuit trail located around the natural area. The site includes parking areas and other trails. Section 4(f) Use Package A Widening would occur to both sides of the highway in this location and a new frontage road would tie into the entrance into the natural area, resulting in a slight impact of 0.09 acre to the eastern edge of the park. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. Access to the natural area would be improved. See Figure 5-84 for Package A use. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Package B Improvements in this location would be similar to those associated with Package A, except the impact would be 0.14 acre. The impact is slightly larger because of the addition of a buffer-separated lane. None of the features or amenities would be impacted as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility.Access to the natural area would be improved. See Figure 5-84 for • Package B use Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.216 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Fort Collins has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Preferred Alternative There are no direct park uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. Indirect Impacts In order to minimize use of the park under both packages, a 300-foot wall, 11 feet to 15 feet in height, is proposed to run along the edge of the park. This has the potential to inhibit the view to the east. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm Use of this property have been avoided and minimized by shifting the frontage road adjacent to 1-25 and with a barrier separation between the edge of the frontage road and the edge of 1-25. Mitigation Measures for Archery Range Natural Area • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be employed for erosion control. • Property acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-217 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportationIll Figure 5-84 Archery Range Natural Area Package A and B Use • , LEGEND ` ' F. . , F �. Lir ethPackage A Park Impacts r ' i - • _I Package B Park Impacts �1 • •1 ' - • 1 1:: , ' I. -A v.1 ` a I k --.rt. ,)01hibitakbIP �ft � / . 0•• i + S• • • % • mo. '�i ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA \ '''`. [rsr • f r `. V - . iii ,' • r Package A i 5 „ I ,• .09 Acres 44.F ,. ! 'L \• X11 • t . • . -A :- \ i• - Illy , Package B • , ‘ A . 14 Acres -r... r. . t . / ..\ • i 1 } + _ .. _ 1» as I n ,: 'N. N A.,9 i .I ,' M. -.~< ' . % 1• z .% 1 r I • A t iI s i '1Location Map ..rci v . 77 Pe H 0 600 0....I' Abi 1-11 . ) \�., I I Feet Nolte •''. c . ith Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-218 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area (Map ID Number 3) Description Location: Larimer County East of Loveland on Highway 402 on 1-25 Frontage Road Size: 51 acres Type: Wildlife refuge: Hunting (rabbit, dove,waterfowl),warm water fishing, picnicking and wildlife viewing. Access: Public must have wildlife stamp,which is a$10 annual fee. Public access restricted one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise daily except when fishing. Usage/Patronage: Average 20/30 people/day, summer 100 people/day Relationship to Other Resources: Big Thompson River runs through property Ownership/Jurisdiction: Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW) Significance: Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area(SWA)is one of 20 SWAs in Larimer County. The Park provides recreation in the forms of hunting,fishing, as well as wildlife viewing. Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community,the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area by Package Package A Package B A-H2 GP Highway Improvements: B-H2 Tolled Express Lanes: SH14toSH60 SH14toSH60 • A total of 0.11 acre by incorporation A total of 0.24 acre by incorporation of narrow 750-foot-long and of narrow 750-foot-and 200-foot- 200-foot-long strips of lane adjacent long strips of lane adjacent to 1-25 to 1-25 due to ramp and lane due to ramp and land additions. No additions. No impacts to features, impacts to features, amenities or amenities or wildlife area. wildlife area. Preferred Alternative: No use Management Plan & Resource Description The management plan, created in 1984,focuses on warm water fish species, including bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black croppie(Pomoxis nigromaculatus)and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). These species are monitored every one to two years via population sampling using trap nets. State Wildlife Areas are properties owned or managed by the CDOW for the benefit of wildlife and wildlife-related recreation. CDOW properties not only protect wildlife habitat, but also provide the public with opportunities to hunt,fish, and watch wildlife. This property is intensively used by both anglers and those hunting waterfowl. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.219 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Section 4(f) Use Package A Use at this location would result from the addition of the general purpose lane and the auxiliary lane on the west side of I-25, as well as the transition of the ramp from the US 34 interchange south onto I-25. The combined improvements would use the easternmost edge of the wildlife area. Walls were placed in this area in order to minimize use, and the area used was reduced to 0.11 acre. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the wildlife area would not be diminished in utility. Permanent right-of-way and Section 4(f) use includes a maintenance easement. See Figure 5-85 for uses associated with Package A. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and CDOW has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities,features, or attributes of the resource. Package B Use at this location would result from the addition of the two barrier-separated tolled express lanes on the western side of the general-purpose lanes.These lanes would also accommodate the BRT. The combined improvements would affect the easternmost edge of the wildlife area.Walls were placed in this area in order to minimize impact and the acreage used was reduced to 0.24 acre. None of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the natural area would not be diminished in utility. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and CDOW has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities,features, or attributes of the resource. Preferred Alternative • There are no direct park uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. Indirect Effects For the build alternatives, indirect effects include noise impacts to portions of the park,which exceed CDOT's noise abatement criteria (NAC). Although the noise level impacts are above the level required for NAC, they will not substantially impair the activities or features that qualify the wildlife area for Section 4(f) protection. The increase would be small but still require an exploration of mitigation. For more detailed information, please refer to Section 3.6, Noise and Vibration. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The design includes retaining walls. The Section 4(f) use cannot be entirely avoided because the retaining walls require a 10-foot easement for CDOT maintenance activities. Retaining walls have been included on the east side of I-25 to minimize impacts. Retaining walls would be extended on Package A south of the bridge to minimize impacts to the Big Thompson River. The retaining walls would not impede wildlife movement and would redirect wildlife to use the crossing under the highway. Mitigation Measures for Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area ▪ CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. • Disturbed area will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be replaced as appropriate. • Easement acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-220 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-85 Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area Package A and B Use g p g LEGEND _•. . ..,; r _ I (2Z2)[ Q LCR 2 i --- . Package A Park Impacts »-, �-�- Package B Park Impacts �� {1 u tea) Cigirr 3rInv tii..M. r , ,,,,, , . , it. ...„ , . _ i , . ./. ire , _ . . . . . . Package A - - - _ 0. 11 Acres ; ! ! 11 Package B 0.24 Acres , y !. i.h • tilt_ ,: ' I i• ' c er .. . - , : / _ - •-•- Y ) 'C rt ,:: ..i. 111* VI 1 .. - i t. q 0, „ ,,, , ?. / etc '-4 , "Illr , . BIG THOMPSON PONDS SWA . . 7 Ibr to* .0..... ).4 . 7. . - i --. # 4_ doi,,,, 4 , . • . . _. . ,.• N..\\ 1 , 25 i Is �►, , ;.a I /; A i se i , L I 1 i it � ` ' t i / allIWIN • • r - i "i�� ' Location Map �w - -2 ' ; 11i . ilk 9 600 /� ;41 A�. ` it i ` i ! Feet North 1' r` v , Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-221 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Little Thompson River Corridor (Map ID Number 4) Description) Location: Adjacent to 1-25, Berthoud Size: 100.92 acres Type: Recreational resource Access: Public Facilities/Amenities: Trails alongside Little Thompson River Usage/Patronage: Data on patronage not available Relationship to Other Resources: Provides a physical and visual buffer between high-and low-intensity land uses. Ownership/Jurisdiction: Town of Berthoud Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community,the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Little Thompson River Corridor by Package Package A Package B A-H3 GP Highway Improvements: B-H3 Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 SH 60 to E-470 A total of 2.04 acres by incorporation A total of 2.03 acres by incorporation of a 600-foot by 100-foot area of a 600-foot by 100-foot area adjacent adjacent to the river due to lane and to the river due to lane and ramp ramp additions and new access.A additions and new access.A portion of portion of the trail would be located the trail would be located under bridge • under bridge structure. No impacts to structure. No impacts to facilities or facilities or amenities. amenities. Preferred Alternative: A total of 1.31 acres by incorporation of a small strip of land adjacent to the river due to lane and ramp additions and new access. A portion of the trail would be located under bridge structure. No impacts to facilities or amenities. Resource Description This recreation area is included in the Town of Berthoud 1-25 Sub-Area Draft Land Use Plan, 2001. The purpose of this area is to provide recreation opportunities while linking nearby residential land uses. Section 4(f) Use Package A Uses at this location would result from the addition of the general-purpose lane and auxiliary lane on the west side of 1-25, as well as the transition of the southbound ramp at the newly configured SH 56 interchange.A portion of the trail along Little Thompson River would be located under the new bridge. Trail access would be maintained for the additional lane and ramp. Current access to the recreation area would be removed and replaced with a new access from the south, ending at a cul-de-sac at the recreation area. The new right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane,the ramp, and the new access would require 2.04 acres of land adjacent to the west side of the highway. None of the features or • amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the recreation area would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-86 for uses associated with Package A. Section 4(0 Evaluation 5-222 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the Town of Berthoud has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities,features, or attributes of the resource. Package B Improvements include the addition of one buffer-separated lane in each direction, for a total of four general-purpose lanes and two tolled express lanes. Bus Rapid Transit would share the tolled express lanes. Uses at this location would result from the right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane,the ramp, and the new access to the area. Total acreage used would be 2.03 acres adjacent to the highway on the west side.Aside from the new access and a portion of the trail under the new bridge, none of the features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the recreation area would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-86 for uses associated with Package B. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the Town of Berthoud has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Preferred Alternative Improvements include the addition of one buffer-separated lane and one general-purpose lane in each direction,for a total of six general-purpose lanes and two TELs. Express Bus would share the TELs. Uses at this location would result from the right-of-way acquisition required to accommodate the additional lane, the ramp, and the new access to the area. Total acreage used would be 1.31 acres adjacent to the highway on the both sides.Aside from the new access and a portion of the trail under the new bridge, none of the features or amenities would be used as a result,and the remainder of the recreation area • would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-87 for uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the Town of Berthoud has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities,features, or attributes of the resource. Indirect Effects Indirect effects would be the same for all alternatives.West side property access would be maintained, except for the northwest park road connection to the service road. This connection would be severed, but access would still be available to the south. East side property access would be modified so that recreationists would use the new service road. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm CDOT would develop the new access before the existing access is closed. The trail extends for several miles perpendicular to the highway at this location. There are also several wetlands located on either side of I-25. Shifting to the east to avoid impacts to wetlands and the trail on the west would also have impacted wetlands and trails; therefore, no additional measures to minimize harm could be identified. Mitigation Measures for Little Thompson River Corridor • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by transportation improvements. • CDOT will develop the new access before the existing access is closed.Alternate routes will be identified and adequate detour signing will be provided. • Work with Berthoud to reseed disturbed with native grasses. • • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-223 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Ill Figure 5-86 Little Thompson River Corridor Packages A and B Use it LEGEND r �i ea Package A Park Impacts hr i CZ Package B Park Impacts I.:41 ,� pp. i A ... ,- . 1 'I • 4 IL i T, LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDOR i 4•ft , I 1I -W_ : galy q• �. . .,M i., Package A i.\,_ 2.04 Acres ri. tit. • ,'_� . N--e . • Package B 25 2.03 Acres ,} Ill !m*• LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER CO RRIDOR 1, _ • y Yl: i< r;. • New +' Access , i N 1 4 • � . �� i �1 .r _,�.-,� - ,, wnr, PC ; if L ' ' '' , { I - 3e ` i j� r i i , j . i _ •' .-el 'Yl . 'I. If iliF j , : - 1 I' i j [ r 0 44 .9% . i , •r •" I ‘\ l I. lit e Location r Map' : I~ 1'17-NM0Feet leratlls North it. 311 ' S / - 1 ` IIII Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-224 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Figure 5-87 Little Thompson River Corridor Preferred Alternative Useinformation. cooperation transportation.iLEGEND Park and Recreation Resources Preferred Alternative Resource Impact -*. , ` ,f IPreferred Alternative ROW Boundary ' "� allLittle Thompson River Corridor Boundary Preferred Alternative . '.. Bridge Guardrails EOP JRoadway Features E— . Retaining Wall . —71 Parcel Boundaries A,._A Guardrails e 7 - ANEW. �! ► T s . 0, I LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDO 1JR • I t. Illk _ . Si �_ y. .. 4 • Air. -- . : i _.:.t Preferred Alternative III 25 Total Impacts = 1 .31 Acres, /LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER CORRIDOR r I A i c / t r • .., - 7 , 4 I t _ r -I• Lo; + v !t• p far I . i 1 / - re' i 1 II 41 ; • . ' I I • ' r ,_ • F ::0000,egeor i , I 5, ; ,(..4, • 1 , I. . \ Th, - \ - t, , .. 4 , ,:..) tit _.._ 0 , e.t.: Location Map' i dr' 1 .0 1 ,000 ,ort Feet ' North ''� " fI mc .mss:.� l l �_ Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-225 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Sandstone Ranch (Map ID Number 6) Description Location: West of 1-25, south of SH 119 Size: 313 acres Type: Park Access: Public access Facilities/Amenities: Softball fields, soccer fields, trails, picnic tables, playground, skate park, restrooms, BBQ grills, concession stand Usage/Patronage: 10,000/year Relationship to Other Resources: In September 2000, Longmont designated the house at Sandstone Ranch as a local landmark on the State and National Historic Registers. In addition, a management plan has been completed for the Sandstone Ranch Park with the goal to protect habitat and wildlife in the area. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Longmont Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Sandstone Ranch by Package • Package A Package B A-T2 Transit Component- B-T2 Transit Component-BRT: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to DIA Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 2.17 acres;40 to 60 feet of trail would require relocation and replacement. No other No use features or amenities would be impacted. Preferred Alternative: A total of 1.45 acres; 40 to 60 feet of trail would require relocation and replacement. No other features or amenities would be impacted. Resource Description Sandstone Ranch Park is a 313-acre City of Longmont park.Active use areas include ball fields, soccer fields, playground, multi-sport fields, and a skate park in the northern portion of the site. Passive use areas include picnic area, concessions, shelters, and parking. Other passive uses include open space for trails and wildlife viewing. The 1998 Sandstone Ranch Final Master Plan also calls for construction of additional ball fields south of the existing ball fields in the northwestern portion of the site. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-226 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Section 4(f) Use Package A Package A use at this location would result from the new commuter rail line proposed to run south of SH 119 to connect from Longmont to the proposed FasTracks North Metro Corridor end-of-line station in Thornton. The commuter rail line track would use 2.17 acres at the northernmost edge of the park, adjacent to SH 119.A small portion of the trail in the northwest corner of the park would be used due to 40 feet to 60 feet of encroachment but none of the other features or amenities would be used as a result, and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-88 for detail of park impacts associated with Package A. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Longmont has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities,features, or attributes of the resource. Page; There are no direct impacts associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Use at this location would be similar to that under Package A. The commuter rail line track would use 1.45 acres at the northernmost edge of the park,adjacent to SH 119.A small portion of the trail in the northwest corner of the park would be used due to 40 feet to 60 feet of encroachment but none of the other features or amenities would be used as a result,and the remainder of the park would not be diminished in utility. See Figure 5-89 for detail of park impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. • FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations would be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Longmont has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm A retaining wall was included on the south side of the proposed tracks to mitigate use of the park. Otherwise,the railway footprint is reduced to the minimum width required to meet FRA and FTA design and safety standards. Mitigation Measures for Sandstone Ranch • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. • Property will be acquired consisted with the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Program. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-227 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E1S information. cooperation. transportation. ilill Figure 5-88 Sandstone Ranch Package A Use _ - . . . LEGEND • '. ,� Package A Park Impacts ! i1 I. ' Package A i trai 4t_ 2.17 Acres ar . •:. • i • . 1 ' t '''''''' '' ' II / • P.% . '' •:' ' )' • , • Jf< W ti' 1 I k ` • D J c 1 • a _ k i• 1' �. - R� - :I is j r 4 ry I ID SANDSTONE RANCH „ . . --- ........- Nit __. \ ti.:► r. . �_ ? 'sod .,` /` :t if, I �1 A 1 f '( G • 1 I i / . . I t // /,../ , ' i 1441 •Itt �I ., �. S. air t -Liz, \, -r A . Location -Map- 4\ • • .. n 500 f •S , Feet �'`.' t. North it 11 as aill Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-228 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 111 information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5-89 Sandstone Ranch Preferred Alternative Use - - •.— ,q�}. ,- LEGEND N �I _ 1�. , ; s Park and Recreation Resources : I� UN - Preferred Alternative Resource Impact ' ... •.,r , Preferred Alternative ROW Boundary ii• i Sandstone Ranch Boundary l;. Er _ ,. E p+ • a Preferred U Alternative '— Bndge Guardrails r ,r IS POP I I Roadway Features F. Retaining Wall Parcel Boundaries `,A Guardrails _ _ sue.•- __.. . __ ..-.•.• �_ a -. -aaaadamwaassmagmivsfib? -_ r .. .. a V' .4TA,.. : •:_r• • , .. -, . - _ tiE II. r' 1 o r . ,. `•ti,4 1 ., eilk I., 4 Preferred Alternative -T 1 Total Impacts = 1 .45 Acres t, t I tor' SANDSTONE RANCH - .,, �; - v. 7; li. ...d AI vt. . • _41 i ,.�,.; " % ✓ 1i .J ,. till . . 16 . � mss'- • 4r4' ti . / ,/ Y r . St y� �gher ' �-111140%.,r i . . : ► . I - N 10 41 Location Map` i �. , ` ' . ; • :• I I _ O300 _ • I�C7 Feet North : . , _ .. ., III +ice a .ate - -._ a� Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-229 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • RR Alignment (21st to Hwy 66) Trail (Map Id Number 7) Description Location: Follows Colorado and Southern RR alignment between 21st and Hwy 66, terminating just south of Hwy 66. Size: 0.5 mile Type: Existing Recreational Trail Access: Publicly accessible Facilities/Amenities: Trail Usage/Patronage: Annual patronage unknown Relationship to Other Resources: Extension of Rough and Ready Trail Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Longmont Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of RR Alignment (21st to Hwy 66)Trail by Package Package A A-T1 Transit Component- Package B Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont De minimis No use • Preferred Alternative No use Resource Description The majority of the RR Alignment(21st to Hwy 66)Trail exists,with a small missing segment immediately south of Hwy 66 that is proposed. Section 4(f) Use Package A Package would result in direct impacts to approximately 1,510 linear feet of the existing trail. A temporary detour would be provided, before the current trail alignment is demolished. Consequently, no trail closure is necessary, and there would be no disruption of service to trail users. Because the trail would be permanently altered and rerouted, this cannot be considered a temporary occupancy. However, because there would be no overall adverse affect on the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f), this would be a de minimis use of the RR Alignment(21st to Hwy 66)Trail. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations will be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Longmont has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. See Figure 5-90 for a depiction of trail use. Package B There is no use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package B improvements. Preferred Alternative There is no use of any portion of this resource resulting from the Preferred Alternative. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-230 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm As described previously, CDOT intends to mitigate any harm to the RR Alignment (21st to Hwy 66) Trail by providing a detour before demolishing the current alignment of the trail. Consequently, no trail closure is necessary, and there would be no disruption of service to trail users. While the trail would be permanently changed, the new trail would be constructed to fit aesthetically into the current environment, and it would not alter the current function or purpose of the trail. As the project proceeds through final engineering and design, the measures to minimize harm to the RR Alignment(21st to Hwy 66)Trail will be re-examined and refined with the local officials having jurisdiction over the affected resource. The following table includes other mitigation measures to which CDOT, FHWA, and FTA would adhere. Mitigation Measures for the RR Alignment (21st to Hwy 66)Trail • Work with City of Longmont to ensure advanced notice and signage for rerouting of trail. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-231 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. III Figure 5-90 Railroad Alignment (21st to Hwy 66) Trail Preferred Alternative Use LEGEND .I mommi Railroad Alignment 4(f) Impact ^ 3 - I - r. . - - • 4 I. ----- Railroad Alignment Trail (21st to CO 66) I • • • A , It "va_,,..• - aPackage A Rail Impacts j � "0 , ,. -v• ..,r...::qtaik. a ..-Alf ,., ti b. a. isideA . , , , s Y' . ,, . . el +,.. fi, , 00. Package A e. rt , + • ' ' ti 1 ,510 linear feet `y •�► `' fr.tiiiitk. t.sip .. ,;,: e. , .* i 1. ' lia ,..aisi • „I + irt agi -gl .. II, -, '. /I.I, , i Ate, -, - . par T. .: . 1 sa p . .,, . .,,,,rii i , _..,_ , , , , ,,,, \ .1.8 . 4+, , . .., 4, , irt iips.i tip i A .; i itT , ' ' ' i , . 4 . „ . \ , iv . , .•!.. . A._ :::. 11., 4:9 Nvii, lab tvi. A Eir •4114 :W.ear . SS ♦ C• i k. . eitt' / . 4II* A. • ...., . . a )rii ‘ 144it 4itp. . S / z- \ -S mes►w. f4 7 . ., . . ir- --;, ' to . II* . r ,. ,r r " teak Abb. s • . , ' a . . . * ip, : : , 4IP e 0 i' .- � iot e .. � i I. { : Nt : .'74 N\. . .‘ , .{ sok. y r TIM ],It • ---..,,,,..sk1 �.= V tip _.. I- Ir Atti;• __mow filj tit • I , O '-L I I /r ‘, a • i i ,...... _ Iji. I . l . 4,...7 i irst ; 1 i , la 4sit 1--- 1 - 1` I t)i ‘writ , • �, w • 1 t ii I. I -F : • i ' ; ... Location-Map--- s 0 300 t 7"'7; r =•Feet North b1: t l \ ...` S` a...d e Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-232 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass (Map Id Number 8) Description Location: Runs east to west from Huron Street, through Wagon Road park-n-Ride, under 1-25 to Malley Drive. Size: 0.97 mile Type: Existing recreational Access: Publicly accessible Facilities/Amenities: Trail Usage/Patronage: Annual patronage unknown Relationship to Other Resources: Approximate 700-foot section of a 0.97-mile-long trail. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Northglenn Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass by Package Package A Package B A-H4 Structure B-H4 Tolled Express Upgrades: Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to 70th Avenue No use Temporary trail closure of 790 linear feet De minimis use Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements and Express Bus: Same as Package B Resource Description The 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass (see Photo 5-1 and Photo 5-2) is just south of 120th street. It connects a trail from Huron Street, below 1-25 to Farmers Highline Canal. See Figure 5-91 . e .Ate j:44 PPP limapps ra ` + Vr 1 1 -talk I a . If- ., .. z •.SC.Csrte r �:Y' �� " ��Q�E��.�� It r i{�� Photo 5-1 : 120th Avenue Transit Station Photo 5-2: 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass, facing east from the west side of 1-25. Underpass facing west, on the east side of 1-25. Section 4(f) Use Package A There is no use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package A transportation improvements. Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-233 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Package B Package B calls for replacing the existing box culvert with a new box culvert at this location to accommodate the widening of 1-25. The new box culvert would be approximately 50 feet longer than the existing box culvert.A temporary closure of the trail would be required during the replacement of the box culvert, and the trail tie-in to the new longer culvert would require minor realignment of the trail. Otherwise, construction activities would not modify or affect the trail. A potential detour would require trail users to take Huron Street north to 120th Avenue,then east across 1-25. By taking Community Center Drive south, users would reach the Farmers Highline Canal, to which the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass connects. Huron Street has a detached sidewalk suitable for bicyclists, and Grant Street is a local residential arterial. 120th Avenue has a detached sidewalk, but bicyclists would be required to mix with vehicle traffic while crossing over 1-25. For a temporary use of 790 feet of trail closure during construction, a 1.2-mile detour would have to be established.The length of the detour and the necessary close contact with vehicle traffic poses severe safety problems, especially for pedestrian trail users; hence,the detour is not prudent and feasible because a trail closure would be necessary for the 120th Avenue underpass and a prudent detour does not exist. The requirements of a temporary occupancy would not be fulfilled,therefore,there would be no temporary use of this resource. The addition of 50 feet to this trail undercrossing by replacing it with a new box culvert would modify the visual experience of trail users; however, this slight change would not substantially diminish the overall aesthetic quality of the trail. Trail users would continue to be afforded a facility similar in visual quality as exists presently. The function and purpose of the trail would be unchanged. Accordingly,the visual effects associated with a longer underpass would not result in the constructive use of this Section 4(f)resource.Any other potential long-term disruption of the use and enjoyment of this resource associated with operation- related proximity impacts (i.e., noise, impaired aesthetic quality, restricted access, and/or ecological intrusion)would be avoided or minimized, and would, therefore, not substantially diminish the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Package B would not • permanently incorporate land from this Section 4(f)resource. The use would not result in a change of functionality for the trail crossing. Because there would be no overall adverse effect on the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f),this would be a de minimis use of the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations will be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Northglenn has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. See Figure 5-91 for uses associated with Package B. Preferred Alternative Impacts to the 120th Avenue Transit Station Trail would be the same as those described for Package B, and would result in a de minimis use of the trail. See Figure 5-91 for uses associated with the Preferred Alternative. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm As the project proceeds through final engineering and design, the measures to minimize harm to the 120th Transit Station Underpass will be re-examined and refined with the local officials having jurisdiction over the affected resource.Temporary uses of the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass would be mitigated by improving lighting. The following table includes other mitigation measures to which CDOT, FHWA, and FTA would adhere. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-234 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information_ cooperation. transportation_ Mitigation Measures for the 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass • A detour will be provided and in place prior to closure of the existing trail. • Advanced notice and signage will be in place for closure and detour. • Trail crossings will be returned to existing or improved condition after construction. • A public safety and security program will be developed and implemented for affected areas with local officials, including access management, signage, and public information. • A traffic management plan will be developed and implemented with local officials for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • Coordinate with City of Northglenn regarding design features and size of opening. • Applicable regional and/or local design criteria will be included for bridges and the box culvert structures in construction specifications. • • Section 4Vf)Evaluation 5-235 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5-91 120th Avenue Transit Station Underpass Preferred Alternative Use • LEGEND iI - -_ , b• • sail Package B & Preferred Alternative a r - r• , • ,s i: ..,-,itis ■ ' - - -- - 120th Station Underpass t' `, Package B Highway Footprint - • ., ♦ Preferred Alternative Bridge Iii r•• _ ' �f . _ _. 7)2 r ." . - 1 .0 I 4, r v '7 o • le ber , .....„ , , , ,,i ., ,, j, , i. 1 1[Il i`Y y . ., :,.i 1., , / i / I ' . *. Irr i4Mr .q^1^�rv+1.41 Xln . 1 - .. A' I y .11 . s M +'1 If ;q � . ♦ - . '4.3 4 {�'� r. �144[� + ? 1 My4'1 a 'Fa ►S �^ f >' '. Italia r1 .4 t , 1 ,.. ' Package B & u"Air V , r-, Preferred Alternative "� �#`� iti790 linear feet qtr. lit iniaratiossi y1�r qe; ....s-. 4 �y 1 -« 41, III . .. . , ! i, _ _ . ,i., ., ., . ., .„,, . . . _... G r �. � '� ii":4,1 1 tproatarr: sal)"7 f" 7.0 1 i „.,,lt,,Niki L i — . ris . • . ti'. . . , ,, -,, i 7 �_• 3+ A „. i., ., _, • , r.,,iit.t i r j ` � ' . I r.- - 1 • . �� 1� 4 / ( r,3I ` • i ` t`, •t ti ii . 1...fr •Ji I CI !.! yam. N --4 1 F-4( - e- . ] tir: 1� sY #t-i T4rAJ7' r ; /�H ' -y 1 //( - Location fl.'--%.-, . . 7:ordi •4.7 e • °-11 4 . Map -••_* . ,� 4•••• * ' r.ilifrk,0 300 op,:e ... .ctoriodi ' ' Feet , North i Itt. -•IlfIII Section 4(f) Evaluation 5.236 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Farmers Highline Canal Trail (Map Id Number 9) Description Location: Standley Lake east to Northglenn's EB Raines Park ( 10.3 mi) and beyond into Thornton. Size: 10.3 miles Type: Existing multi-Use, off-street trail Access: Publicly accessible Facilities/Amenities: Trail Usage/Patronage: Annual patronage unknown Relationship to Other Resources: Trail meanders through a variety of parks and open space property. Approximate 580-foot section of a 10.3-mile-long trail. Ownership/Jurisdiction: City of Westminster Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community, the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Farmers Highline Canal Trail by Package Package A Package B A-H4 Structure Upgrades: B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to 70th Avenue No use Culvert expansion and temporary closure (575 linear feet of trail) De minimis use Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements and Express Bus: Same as Package B Resource Description The Farmers High Line Canal Trail (see Photo 5-3) 1 I is a signature trail that winds from near Standley Lake east to Northglenn's EB Raines Junior Memorial Park and beyond into Thornton. The trail is paved in various locations along its length Maintenance of the trail is the responsibility of the different jurisdictions through which the trail passes. -r • 1. • • 1 ! Photo 5-3: Farmers Highline Canal Underpass, facing west on the east side of 1-25. Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-237 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • Section 4(0 Use Package A There is no use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package A transportation improvements. Package B Package B would replace the existing underpass with a new underpass at this location to accommodate the widening of 1-25. The new underpass would be approximately 87 feet longer than the existing underpass.A temporary closure of the trail would be required during construction. The trail would not be modified during construction activities. A stormwater detention basin would be built on the east side of 1-25 just north of the trail, but this basin would not impact the trail. A potential detour would require trail users to take Community Center Drive south at E.B. Rains,Jr. Memorial Park. Community Center Drive crosses 1-25 as an overpass with wide sidewalks suitable for bicycles. Once on the west side of 1-25, users would take West 112th Avenue to Huron Street, go south and reconnect with the Farmers Highline Canal Trail. For a temporary use of 575 feet of trail closure during construction, a 1.21-mile detour would have to be established. The entire detour would be on existing trails; however, because of its length,this detour is not prudent and feasible for trail users. Since a trail closure would be necessary and a prudent detour does not exist for the Farmers Highline Canal Trail,the requirements of a temporary occupancy would not be fulfilled;therefore,there would be no temporary use of this resource. The addition of 87 feet on this trail undercrossing would modify the visual experience of trail users by extending the underpass; however,this slight change would not substantially diminish the overall aesthetic quality of the trail. Trail users would continue to be afforded a facility similar in visual quality as currently exists. The function and purpose of the trail would be unchanged. Accordingly, the visual effects associated with a longer underpass would not result in the constructive use of this Section 4(f)resource.Any other potential long-term disruption of the use and enjoyment of this resource associated with operation-related • proximity impacts (i.e., noise, impaired aesthetic quality, restricted access, and/or ecological intrusion)would be avoided or minimized, and would, therefore, not substantially diminish the activities,features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Package B would permanently incorporate a small amount of land from this Section 4(f)resource required for the widening of 1-25. The use would not result in a change of functionality for the trail crossing. See Figure 5-92 for a depiction of trail use. Because there would be no overall adverse affect on the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f),this would be a de minimis use of the Farmers Highline Canal Trail. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations will be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the City of Westminster has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities,features, or attributes of the resource. Preferred Alternative Impacts to the Farmers Highline Canal Trail would be the same as those described for Package B, and would result in a de minimis use of the trail. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm As the project proceeds through final engineering and design, the measures to minimize harm to the Farmers Highline Canal Trail will be re-examined and refined with the local officials having jurisdiction over the affected resource. The following table includes other mitigation measures to which CDOT, FHWA, and FTA would adhere. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-238 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Mitigation Measures for the Farmers Highline Canal Trail • Advanced notice and signage will be in place for closure. • Trail crossings will be returned to existing or improved condition after construction. • A public safety and security program will be developed and implemented for affected areas with local officials, including access management, signage, and public information. • A traffic management plan will be developed and implemented with local officials for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. • BMPs will be used to avoid or minimize construction-related nuisances in affected areas from noise, dust, light/glare, etc. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Native shrubs will be added as appropriate. • BMPs will be employed for erosion control • Applicable regional and/or local design criteria will be included for bridges and the box culvert structures in construction specifications. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-239 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 US information cooperation. transportation11111 Figure 5-92 Farmers Highline Canal Trail LEGEND III Se t . OR 1 az -arareameas kr : gift _____ al a Ili ;ill itip3/45,-, f • s Farmers Highline Canal Trail 4(f) Impacts '. 'o,--44:. ..--- Farmers Highline Canal Trail r t .). Package B Highway Footprint I ' leg / •r If--E-t' Preferred Alternative Bridge ' •u IS , / ,v I: j li . it 1 t'' j ( y71 s' !i _ei,It lik vai rlisili it lir It , A ,If- - , - !!"' tit . . cr r ., . .,,,, i; Jeri f at „S , 44 , :lir , _ . . Package B & ..., \ - �i� �" " Preferred Alternative `� ` ��.x 1 575 linear feet i .. r i 4.a . Y ill -Alii; \ . 4I - ,i, , II 4 '41 I a, • .. ... ... / k. D.II:"liPet : 1 4211" thrlik,.... 4 1;Pe'ltilik III IA 1. . 41 thip a sa iiikr . 4 -. - Ft :". /A...i. *c + "it t a — 41 r • J ,/1"-----..;\ FirtAssiti . I . r tr,..2.1 _i. si ,,* A Pi t. - .04 '1 I 1�4 1 ,,,,,r . - -.1.. 1"11 1 1 IfaalL , _ •,�PI t !bast 11 vi 474 11I� 71 tip)a Ile. 0 -I-- t \is II rir 1 4 1 71frif 4:" *4 PP _ -4 IgCmes• --). - % Z(4 lial •iiMi "It el i E al 64 % 4-44;„, sietrt . . ..„ ,,,, , .., .., •� _ �* 4!il si3O,4 meg tik.). or .� �' :t ' y k , • , . ' • 11 �I :re "r• *f ir l>ur� , 11 N f • 1 rw-J art V 'V �1�'•. 1 . 1 l L " d 0 300 1• I�� I Feet i� +� _ '' ?qtr North r v \ • Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-240 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail (Map Id Number 10) Description Location: The trail begins at Zuni Street and travels southeastward.At Huron Street the trail enters the Niver Creek Open Space. This Open Space is located between Huron St. and 1-25 and Thornton Pkwy.And 84th Ave.The trail continues on passing beneath 1-25 and then follows Coronado Pkwy. Size: Trail: 1.12 miles; Open Space: 61 Acres Type: Open Space/Existing recreational trail Access: Publicly accessible Facilities/Amenities: Regional trail, benches, bike racks, guardrail/fence, lighting, signage, trashcans. The majority of the trail is existing with a few small missing segments that are proposed. Usage/Patronage: Annual patronage unknown Relationship to Other Resources: Approximate 1,200 foot section of 1.12-mile-long trail Ownership/Jurisdiction: Adams County/City of Thornton Significance: Comparing the availability and function of this resource with the park and recreation objectives of the community,the resource in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. Use of Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail by Package and Component Package A Package B • A-H4 Structure Upgrades: B-H4 Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 E-470 to 70th Avenue No use Replace existing underpass with overpass De minimis use Preferred Alternative I-25 Highway Improvements and Express Bus: Same as Package B Resource Description Niver Creek Open Space is preserved by the City of Thornton to protect the natural areas surrounding the junction of the north and south forks of Niver Creek,to provide for passive recreation uses including the Niver Creek trail,to provide for wildlife habitat, and to act as a buffer between 1-25 and the residential uses to the west.The Niver Creek Trail begins west of Niver Creek Open Space and follows the creek to the east side of 1-25. It is mostly constructed with a few small missing segments that are proposed. Regional trail facilities provide connections to trail systems that cross municipalities,to neighboring community trail systems, or to major activity centers. It has paved and unpaved sections, and is 10 feet to 12 feet wide. Section 4(f) Use Package A There is no direct use of any portion of this resource resulting from Package A transportation improvements. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-241 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • Package B Package B improvements involve replacing the 88th Avenue bridge over 1-25 as well as the existing underpass that the Niver Creek Trail uses to cross 1-25. The bridge replacement will require the acquisition of approximately 2 acres of land that is currently located along the southeast corner of the Niver Creek Open Space. This property will be acquired to accommodate fill slopes along 88th Ave and the express bus/BRT improvements to 1-25. The Niver Creek Trail will be the only attribute affected by the proposed improvements as described below. This use of the Niver Creek Open Space will not result in any noticeable change to the aesthetic, environmental, or recreational features of the natural area. Since there would be no overall adverse effect on the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f), this would be a de minimis use on the Niver Creek Open Space. The pedestrian underpass will be replaced with an approximately 1,720-foot-long by 11-foot-wide pedestrian overpass, and the trail will be rerouted to this overpass. CDOT intends to complete the overpass prior to the demolition of the underpass;therefore, no trail closure would be required. Because the trail will be permanently altered and rerouted, this cannot be considered a temporary occupancy. However, since there would be no overall adverse effect on the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this resource for protection under Section 4(f), this would be a de minimis use on the Niver Creek Trail. The replacement of the existing underpass with a new overpass would modify the visual experience for trail users; however,this change would not substantially diminish the overall aesthetic quality or recreational experience provided by the trail. An underpass affords a trail user a tunnel-like experience, while an overpass would be more open. The existing visual setting of trails in this area includes a built environment with urban elements(e.g., commercial and residential development, roadways, highways, etc.). Thus, in this context, trails such as this one would not likely have the same visual sensitivity as would be expected in less- developed areas While the trail crossing of 1-25 would be by different means than currently exists,the • overall experience, function, and purpose of the trail would be unchanged. Any other potential long-term disruption of the use and enjoyment of this resource associated with operation-related proximity impacts (i.e., noise, impaired aesthetic quality, restricted access, and/or ecological intrusion)would be avoided or minimized, and would, therefore, not substantially diminish the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). See Figure 5-93 for a depiction of Section 4(f)uses associated with Package B. FHWA and CDOT propose that this use would have de minimis impact. Final de minimis determinations will be completed once the public has had an opportunity to comment and the Adams County and the City of Thornton has provided written concurrence that the use does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. Preferred Alternative Impacts expected under the Preferred Alternative are identical to those under Package B described above. All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm As described previously, CDOT intends to mitigate any harm to the Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail by rerouting the trail onto an adjacent trail within the Open Space and constructing the new overpass before demolishing the current underpass. Consequently, no trail closure is necessary, and there would be no disruption of service to trail users. While the trail would be permanently changed,the new overpass would be constructed to fit aesthetically into the current environment, and it would not alter the current function or purpose of the trail. As the project proceeds through final engineering and design,the measures to minimize harm to the Niver Creek Trail will be re-examined and refined with the local officials having jurisdiction over the affected resource. The following table includes other mitigation measures to which CDOT, FHWA, and FTA would adhere. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-242 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Mitigation Measures for the Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail • CDOT will investigate the suitability of land acquisition for replacement of impacted lands used by the transportation improvements. • A detour will be provided and in place prior to closure of the existing trail. • Advanced notice and signage will be in place for closure and detour. • Trail crossings will be retumed to existing or improved condition after construction. • Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses. • Work with Adams County and City of Thornton to ensure advanced notice and signage for rerouting of trail. • The trail underpass will be replaced by an overpass prior to the demolition. • • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-243 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 5-93 Niver Creek Open Space/Niver Creek Trail 111 . _ 1 LEGEND - . ., ; 9 ^ ^ Potential Trail Detour ,r r "r- • ., �■ Trail Impacts . . . • • • Niver Creek Trail , 1.,,• . ti L J • A Niver Creek Open Space 4(f) impacts \` . IN! 7.- . / : 'Niver Creek Open Space r t r Package B Highway Footprint • •' ^^ � St* Preferred Alternative Bridge :ry -^f- ait • r - ;:- , t! ... , -13, ,. . . k - - 'red icy- v. i. __. . \ _ j.,.‘...4 4' 844 , i ..b) _ , - ] ° . ...e t� - ., a .-tit• ;... , ,,;.„ . c_i ' NI II% ' all - .la:t LAwit Niver CreekTrail: Package B & Preferred . • Alternative 940 linear feet ^ t r i •�. f �.r- \ .) \ r , • - ...:.. ..�• ,yam.»... --...i.. � �.1 440: It,- . , .. - • 9 ' .____i_ //: s.j; r -: t N • ' • .• ' • Niver Creek Open Space: - • ^ . i' Package B & Preferred a it , ti, 1 r . ` Alternative: 2 acres 7.-.. ,....,, "Location Map �. . •[ ; )aing / 1 . ,, „-,-.-,s s -�ii) 1 '. 'ertrieahe' s \ ! ' IL jai: , 1 . ...It lr-4 scir 600 - t „ : �J I Feet r �• , 4� North r ► '�=' IIIII Section 4(f) Evaluation 5-244 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 5.6 LEAST OVERALL HARM ANALYSIS The FHWA has determined that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and the Preferred Alternative includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) properties resulting from such use. Section 4(f) mandates that if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that avoids the use of a Section 4(f) resource, that alternative must be selected. If all alternatives use land from a Section 4(f) resource, then an analysis must be performed to determine which has the least overall harm to the Section 4(f) resource. The least overall harm is determined by balancing the following factors: ► The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property; ► The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualifies each property for protection; ► The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; ► The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; ► The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; ► After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f); and • ► Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. Table 5-7 provides a summary of the Section 4(f) uses, by alternative and by type of property. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-245 C T C w C m a) O a) 0 a O 'CO -00c -O O) N N C L C N Z y a J N N 0 E N O .L- N .Yp- O C ... • _ N O U O O v0) N CO J in r -O L N "O 0 O - O E _ o r co N U .L„ w L O y C L N > a) O N U N a) -0 ° 00 ." H c y ` 0 O o O C J r d c O U `t 0 C c O "O O d y N ° oa) c ° ° 3N J000 _ 03 � tnCo no, Ny > m -O � N3 � � Not 'a u°�i3 `oai � cwaLrny •'� cNooN '� � o c w N D. C �'- N a (0 U L C c U )D E .> N .N N y -ND O U N c N O —` Nc� � 0 mcNaNvo az 0 - 04OEiax) 20ba aEw ° CWT ° � �] cp ° N O L O L y d N co O _/ O N m "O 0 N N ' OL. o N r O H a) •••• C O NL. -O f/i C O O N O O N L Z l°° .L-. N y ° N N 0 O r a) a N— co r O n C) N O Jof ' N L '8 Can:, co "O ) co -O _--- _a til p 'U a) N N L .LN. U E a )D o .N„ -.N H o ?' a - .. JO coo O �L 0 — L CV N 0 or or J _c �J _ cm .- U t0q .0 co a 3 a) oN C U N a N ° .L.. ° C N Z "0 O i ° ~ C N C N N O N F-• ° T j N E N O a C y U ° N N U (0 N N °- N N co ° U Y E N •C (6 C N ai N C O 0 - 0 N O g)'C N "' 0 ,L 2 a N _ E 0 N N 'N N U O) > c L - > 1 = O 3 L C L.. °.0) a N N .L.. b a N a N E L O U 3 -c -c Et J .S N L U N m ¢ C oacm 'm ° - -o N v E ° a7 C E CD N N `) C L C co N Z N a J j f/1 2 N E v! C N O 0 O D C a .L.. C V O U O N u/ N m J N r 'O L f0 'O V D O . U _a'O N V r "' U Z N T n o > N (0 0 U c 0 O N 5 C O m O N ` o 0 C C J r Q N C o U � w U N L O ° N W N O JO N C ul ° 3 N o J N U N 0 0 N N °=coE N O ` L.. F' 3 m -° E O E p > O 0 C co 7. .L.. a) T V L N O of 3 C C o O ._E >. N '� L N .650C r ,--ca) O p O (OOJLa.yL U .L. Oz co op mCNO C .Ct CUL OONm ry O L ° 'c ° y `) N U -° 0 ° N o 0 a) a) y p ° C N E :ti U OL. C ' N ' C NN.LN. C 2 'O N N Q N N 6.) O N H N Z L D L N �' O C a N .L-� O L c N O of C N L :O O N .� _ -0 N N O J. L rUOm N J o (� !n F a 3 a r N O O w L N C '� L .0 O` JCI) V -° a) ©O) aE NNU 0 'x CNO o2 3mU, .O. JO c 'a) O -o CN co coo N co , a 3 N r w .LN„ a a) C L" r ac) 'N" "O 0 3 'O N -° U i J U y y W v • O N E O N ' N L o o N U o y N alp N N O N t a C c c \ �N 11 -7) J. J N . N N a c N O C L > (0 a L E J 0 = O` p N O - N C O O 0) e o ._ _ :Q N N — y O c L — a T, 03 -2c -22 a'u, m w 9 aZoo) E ° `o 00 ° 0 3 $ w ci `� t 3 o y � ¢ o p m c 0 >, c � cm ' ° m o -O o y C0N a J j y N 0 E c r d 0 O va a., r Z U O U CO J y L N 'O N _° .L. o O N C p O y N -O N r 'O U L o .. V a O 3 = N O O J N T- .0 > N 3 O° t N U � O O O H L C J CO a 0.1 2 c `o 0 3 y o r E d ° w y 0 m C a, o C N ,0 C O Y y 0 w >. N O > O O N N C — N y > 3 l0 _c, N - N 3 U N cO a r b N 3 o N J c O)L L O) y l0"— E000615' J o N >.'C C.2 N N co U C C U a) E >. E (q \ N o -C a, C N o Oi o J N O O N 2 O o ° -co O a3 O) C N N 'C U ≥ E r0 O ` 2 — N 3 N y c N O L o o a, a a) 0 �p C `p C a y 0) N o l-°0 .o E w • 0 O N 0 OL N fa) N O N t r 0 N Nr oL.. t- . H a r o O LN. 'LO ai in (0 0 0 'a) U O a) L L Z OL. N .L.. 2] N O N O N - O N :J N O H N IS N >. a) in O t" Q O` a) J o t� -0 c H U 3 a r .L.. J) a) o O O L N C g N " O 0 L O S .2 r E N a E N N o p X • c N O —o ° 3 c O O J O o y 0 3 > -O 'L" C N C) U > a Y -0 a 3 N L c0i y a a c 'L" r ac) ... o 3 ,6 m o `o aci a cNi O N o N T= N E d a C N Y ° > N N OCD « a— a) N .—°` U y E a) C m a N In co C O N "o N N O O)C N r0 ,«L. J 'O a N E OO O N (0 N 0 O) > C L O a O3 ° C -22a'o0 ° • a0 ° mE ° o8 -c -, I: . @rNi) z ° aa> 2 ¢ 4.7, ;Fr Oi N o -r 7 p 0 O S pa (AN KITS W m 7 N 0 C 7 ti a E IL Q I O • CU N W el H Q O T D • o y co co N — C a N Cu C 0) o- �` O C 0 0 .� Ui N .L-. '00 — d m L -O ` .0. C 3 0 N y m O O C , c N 'O .L.. C Cu 0 �- m o 2 s- a O 0U) ._ a) OC 0EctEE Oac - w LC' , C v0 ≥ .L.. N O X N J O J a) 0 ri c 0 = .m`. ;- mot 5 u >. m o o E o T In. o C m o d aoaa) a vi � '� >, o � 0) 3m0 � E0Nyo u'1 .� > a' aEo min Emmm3 � m2 � 0 N W A w C v t N a 0) o N 0 3 m c 0 O)J 15 •W il o c o E 0 j 0 N N N N U N 0)O L 'O N C o ai j a0+ y N .O Y O N m a) 0 0 c m 7 N J 3 2-.13 re Q DOE a� = o � � ° L � cac) 3 ° o ` wmJ E . .. C N m 0 .. O '0 3 N . — A 0 .C o -, c O _ c �O a N c V >` J 'a) N c d C a m .O � I- N N O Z > N :� 0 N .N C s_ co N C 3 O a.c 0 0 a) 0 .0. O 'O 0 , O tF d lU 7 L C O 0 r 0 N Q 0 0 C 1, ,_ -.2-. a) a O a'.>-. d o- m m t -o o m a am3 � 'o-co• � 7 me • moot 00 _ 0 ° a 73Em .� om � a._ ma LbY >,_OL 0) : N-- CuJ J >. J '0 0 o 3 mom 0 O O .C c a m � 3 t c L 3 3 Pa) s- oU .L.. L r C U m 0 0 0 -0 0 0 5 -0 O i- O L '00 . N - L m r r c m `o o � � ` `4 0 0 72 3 0 0)-mo a) Cu aa) 0 m c. c CO c0 .≥ o m > c . .3y co ≥ o oo .) O w �--0 am mm -0 a)a€ m m .54) c a) 3 E c m o o J a - as o 0 a y -00 m 'O L ].,._o _ 0 t to cc c ur a) .C n c o a o J c o j Cu 3 o a p o o meo0 Lcooa) ,_ m -0ai '' 02ent Ea) a 0 N C 0 ` m C U 0 '-' U "O N m 0 N 0 J Lc O N CO 0 ._ J. Y C J a C 0 C an — 7 o E ' a. C In .C K m 2 m o- E CO t o 0 E 3 0 . O p_ m .ct _^- 0 >., 0000 O >., 0 N 1p 03 C 0 0 N1)CD 0 0 mL y > • CO N C Cr). N a a. E = 0 S) >" 0- 03 ... _o 0 L fn.- la C W .Y N C `•�` O N y E L E `� E "O 0 0 0 "O .z` O et C"f V O JL aJ. U N .O. � O 0 JLL... La =≤ J .J. :Or lb m m Cr m = 0 N 2 0 N U L m O m o m J o m r a) • o a am3 °? o-V) ° nomra) 31EcE -o3wQu) o • O T d CO N• a) f. ... � ." L .L.. o Y J m w .OL '00 0 E ~ �0r N a U N N C co)• CO 7 > C -O O O N N C a) C m a) C C — O w J N O a'— O O m a m co a) ≥ . > 0 a 0 a') o Cu` 0 Ec a o m o E ' aac 0 o ' .N -o .m m.-c 0 w ES'L5 -C mCoa eloa) inCoo 0 h a G `oNEa o -2y "m ma EOo 0 0 0 J Y O m C O a J _ 0 0 a:n co y '- �L„ Fa' 4 0 c m 0 w = C O O C N _0 0 V.Nr L ui_ V .. O ... 240 Ld'E CO E V �113 u) a Y = •YO r J 5 CD 7 = V r7 m m w m m J 0 00- Ca m0 0 m J 0 V) a aoawo-CO mma) r3a> o-v) • er 8 o O O `o da Y0 a m i c c0 eel- o_ CC ¢` N N W y co 10 O. E c In F E • .. . C .0. N O D 0 ea O `o a) o = >.. E 0 .... E � c 0 d i o `o E o m c • It'n ° m m CO a) 0 O E 2 0 C) N _ Q O m D • N N O≤ a a) m D) o Z a) j m a) .- L y C E a) :6 T `O ° a) O y N H C O .L.. m m D O a.c > > C m m ° m 0 0 0 > m m 'm0 O N E. E m �O a m O)w N E -6L o ' E ,:c .c � a a, = w co , m v ° — Y `o a a r c w m ° `. t � � m � Noo3moc ° � rt 3 o c O e m 5 o r •-• Y `m c = 3 m E o z a co 2 0 tSP > w° y N ° ate �« o .� st ca > mw8 jcn0a, 0 O .°.. a) N m O a' 0 =°` C N = 0 m to > .L.. a � � 5 m 3UZ 0 E ) r 3a - -o o `o s_ a) m 0 -C c � c. oE o G `o C c6 ° co y a) J 0 o E L E c a r 2 na) .6) o a E -6L � c E O a) = y a) U) `- a, -o C J O -co a J 3 m o m r -o ° c 0 3 Co a, or3or � L " • • m ac) 3 4-2 --m 3.‘„. w v 4 Rh m o .°. CD N m oa a ; =ow m 3Uz o m m 0) 0 o N ° — 0 a .- '5 O, .D U a) C 'O 0 m6 _o E ` o C0 > BEE o o N 3 6 .Eocm ° omtE20 a, 30E c as Caa> a C y 0 J m 0 .L-. a o a' $ N o _° ° O O Ce c O ° a) 2 O �o L ° Clp � F- a) id o) a a) >., c, D = C 0)ac -o D � Y — -o a) z a m ` a, , a r c_ o 0 m `m r m ° ° 3 Z m m a y — > Cl) ° m O 0 O _ 2 C y X ° N a m Q > C c 73 1.6 C m m m a E o,.. 3 " 2 c -92 0 Q 0 —yam m °� j m = - ._ L � a0c } � -D � Z £ Y ° •mr a, 0 'O .L.. c 0 co) E y 3 -N3 0 LO• C m c c 5 '0 L.. Oct a .° N m U t o J 3 m O W N o ,..= C V y O a) a C Co a 'D E m p t•' Q B3oL3 m -wyc8E � 3 'OCOC„ulQomz "OCV o c � oEEaoE o E > o 3 ° o aci3ymg • y yocmi0cf' NoaE -0 •� o) aa)) yaiN � -°o DG) CD0 v -° L 'ooa, c2 c � �`- � -omNaoic ` VYocCo .m m .. ydmaD) 7 m o2mymoCC mmrn° oa0) ° > °, o g0E = - Eo o °a ` c 'y5o Cl) a ; 'o � co 3 U Z 0 � 'm y 3 a -o a) U O a m m .m � �• U � w r Tc o 0 c w C 0 en a p 0 y0 F O V m �) O C2 Ch CO N LLI- N a) o m C O) N >, a) m !i Q `n I- m Co_-o ae a) E o J� MC D d ° - [t a d o W U — p m w W C H O — p J o C O o 3 0 o Y@ m 3 0 p `o p U w W al m q CCm a o E a N p o m = B m a cp c a LL c 't" mw y � � !_' p ≤ ' O C_ n- r p..Yt -p C a oo � 0 � cm) 3c a) c ., ` - W U p - a '5 co a p o i_-0 aaEi � m W W 3 � � Loi � o � m am3om > 3 � U'1C/� ≥ xmmEa 0m � � > ® Wm d oo ') Dooy—_, a '.1 p m a nE H w C L a !.- .LW. cc C n 'LT" m 0)• 0 E v C N J O ? U . C H o C co z 2 H C m ? C O 6 w Z L W to m n Wt. W o O N m W W E (� m aL m n m `1 a s m !k ` GCG E Q m3 � 3y � Eoo (o -oa? � -�oom � >. axicm0 C > a) Q v LL (onm (on T mna c aica? 0 W 'O � Wyom a _ aW. T p p ~_ LL W ..W. l0 O W m m C 0 C N N 3 0 - O- w Wit ' _ = .- ooaai = cc' � E W - Law 3e25ma ` c E o E rn a 0— >a) E = 5 > o o m � � co a 0 o - E 2 y , a � m .c .c2� E ? 0 0 0 'm 0 0 -c o m � a 4 m w > m a`o a N W W H oP .( p J U Y " m W m o n T OL W C � a a 0 m Y L f 01 W E .. a— H � .c o >.• m 00 a m 3 co d 3 (CB J W w , a> w N a O cocrno -5E ° a) m > W C .- CO O O` N U L W (0 m n W U a) m am Ix m -p .o m .k • o CO T W 0 m m -j C T m • W a a W CO 0 p N O N O m co L 3 J@ Y y ? 2 a W N a (o m a0 . W C m ._' a — : C 'C of • m C N 0. a`o m v0l > N a`o 0 U a) 11) 0 '0 W .C L (No -0CI) C W O O CO O O roc E E a ` NU y .m. W o C m w O E Oi N W W O a m N N I m a.LW- (p )I- y 5 W p C (o N o p m 3 .CC a o a) .c p U (TO 'p U 0) E � a L o 0 o y a) o m a m 3 Oa) E m a = " Loran y3LrEya-o0L 0 oW W WEap; N W.O m E x (0 U •H N y C a T (o oleo' 0 co 0 H• O c w 0 H CD r j - O 2 W 7O 0) D a 0 N -0 3 C ?.a E 3 m 3 -S c a o .F3 « W U W p y x x c co c O . 5 0 C co W O O O. 2..1., T LL O p C W L_ O •- C U 2 W (o (0 co C W E T 2,`Y CO °CO m 000d01`W U 01 C p C m 0 uj E t.. ii C W co ` > C a w j W C Y T:7")-C c L a O > E C c W W -O E 3 CO a N 0.0 O 0 CE ' E 'mN ydc - 35 � Yt > .- ^Z m W o = .? ° -0 — N o o U m c p W On a �° � 4° > E yo o• ._ 0tx 3 ,_ Mno mw2wa0 w_ 0 c d' o W O Ci 7 T U .^0 O N y O F 0 C V m O `1 NN (n x ° d0_' Q W W O p • 7 T c m = to H Co c . LL a y a E V [" a C o W U m d C O Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • De Minimis Uses Among the alternatives, only minor differences are exhibited as they relate to uses that have been recommended for de minimis approval. The Preferred Alternative uses the least acreage from both historic and park properties among the alternatives and fewer resources than Package A. Package B uses less linear distance from the linear resources and fewer resources overall. However, all of the de minimis impacts are so minor that their contribution to the evaluation of the three alternatives and the determination of least overall harm is basically nil. The de minimis impacts have no adverse effects to the activities, features, and attributes of a park or recreation resource, or they have been determined to be "no adverse effect" from a Section 106 standpoint. Therefore, the remainder of this section focuses on the Section 4(f) resource uses that are not de minimis. Uses: Permanent Incorporation of Land All three build alternatives result in the same use of the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park, the only park or recreation property not recommended for de minimis use. Package A would result in more use (in terms of acres)to more Section 4(f) properties than either of the other alternatives. This is due primarily to the greater uses of properties associated with the commuter rail components, and Package A, as opposed to the Preferred Alternative, included the addition of a second track for its entire length. The five historic properties with adverse effects associated with Package A that are not used with Package B include four properties to be acquired: Jillson Farm, Hingley Farm, the Old City Electric Building, and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Railroad Depot; and one railroad, the Denver/Kansas/Union Pacific Railroad. The Preferred Alternative would use more properties • than Package B as a result of the use of the two farms (Hingley and Jillson) and the Denver/Kansas/Union Pacific Railroad. It would also use more lineal feet of the Louden Ditch and the Denver/Kansas/Union Pacific Railroad. 5.6.1 Ability to Mitigate Adverse Impacts In the case of all adverse effects to historic properties, detailed recording of the affected resource in accordance with Colorado Historical Society's Standards for Level II Documentation would occur. For the Louden Ditch, which is adversely affected by all alternatives, this, and insuring the continued operation of the ditch during and after construction, is the only available mitigation option. It would still be eligible for inclusion on the National Register after the project is built. For three of the historic properties (the Hingley Farm, the Old City Electric Building, and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Railroad Depot), the ability to mitigate the adverse effects associated with the uses is not sufficient to compensate for their primary loss of integrity. In all three cases, the acquisition and demolition of the primary building would mean they would no longer be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. All three of these properties are used by Package A. The Preferred Alternative only uses one property (the Hingley Farm). In the case of the railroad that is adversely affected by Package A and the Preferred Alternative (5WL.1969, 5BF130), even though two wooden trestle bridges would be demolished and 2.9 miles of abandoned railroad bed would be modernized, this modernization is entirely consistent with the original use of the railroad right-of-way as a train corridor. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-250 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. The adverse effect to the Jillson Farm under Package A and the Preferred Alternative is largely a result of the introduction of railroad tracks and train traffic to the historic farm setting in which tracks and trains have never been a part of the setting. Not only would they provide a visual intrusion, but they would also bring noise and train activity on a regular schedule to the farm. The farm could continue to serve its agricultural function. Effects to the Jillson Farm would not result in the loss of any of the contributing structural elements and it would still be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The park uses of the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park are identical for all three build alternatives. The key attributes and features of the park are its easy visibility from US 34 so it can be seen as a "gateway" from 1-25 to the City of Loveland, its views of the mountains to the west and its clear view of the sculptures. The three build alternatives all damage these attributes and features even without any physical use of the park, since there will be a new high speed ramp that is elevated approximately 30 feet above the park. This means that the park will be only barely visible from US 34, the views of the mountains will be noticeably reduced and the sculptures will no longer be visible. The three build alternatives use 1.21 acres of parkland, in addition to the indirect impacts of the new high speed ramp. All of these impacts are such that the park, in this location, has lost its intended function. The mitigation option that remains, which the City of Loveland supports, is for a new location to be chosen as a replacement. CD0T will coordinate with the City of Loveland to identify a new location and relocate the park, gateway and visitors center. The City believes that a new location will better serve the original activities, features, and attributes of the park. To summarize, the Section 4(f) uses associated with Package B are able to be fully mitigated • such that the one historic property (the Louden Ditch) would still be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The use of the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park is also able to be fully mitigated by replacement in a manner and location that enhances its intended function. For the Preferred Alternative, the Section 4(f) uses of the Louden Ditch, the Denver/Kansas UPRR, the Jillson Farm and the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park are all such that mitigation would effectively alleviate harm so that their integrity and significance is maintained. The use of the Hingley Farm, however, would not be able to be effectively mitigated because the acquisition and demolition of the primary building would be required. That property would lose its eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. For Package A, similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Section 4(f) uses of the Louden Ditch, the Denver/Kansas UPRR, the Jillson Farm and the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park are all such that mitigation would effectively alleviate harm so that their integrity and significance is maintained. The uses of the Hingley Farm, the Old City Electric Building and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Railroad Depot however, would not be able to be effectively mitigated because the acquisition and demolition of the primary building in each of these cases would be required. Those three properties would all lose their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places 5.6.2 Relative Severity of the Remaining Harm After mitigation, the severity of the remaining harm to the protected activities, attributes or features that qualified these properties for protection is indistinguishable among the • alternatives as they relate to the following two resources: Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.251 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • ► The McWinney Hahn Sculpture Park, where the protected park attributes and features would be lost under all three alternatives. The park will be relocated to a site that is likely to better serve its intended function (as a gateway to the City of Loveland). The harm to this park would be fully mitigated because the City of Loveland would prefer to re-locate this park. After mitigation, all attributes and features important for this park will be replaced in the new location. ► Louden Ditch is 23.25 miles in its entirety. All three alternatives would use the ditch by extending the existing culvert that carries the ditch beneath 1-25 and by placing the ditch in a new culvert beneath the proposed Byrd Drive. The Preferred Alternative would use an additional 524 linear feet over Packages A and B where the ditch runs adjacent to LCR 30 and roadway improvements would affect the ditch. The Preferred Alternative would also use another segment not used by the other alternatives at the rail line where an existing culvert would be extended to accommodate the proposed new service road. Although the Preferred Alternative uses a greater length of the ditch than the other alternatives, after mitigation, there is no difference in the severity of harm to the resource. All uses occur in areas where the setting has previously been compromised by existing culverts and adjacent development. Under all alternatives the ditch would continue to operate toward its intended purpose both during and after construction and the remainder of the ditch would not be compromised. Under all alternatives, the ditch would still retain its important association with the development of water rights and agriculture in Larimer County and would thus still be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Hingley and Jillson Farms, will be affected similarly by Package A and the Preferred • Alternative with no impacts under Package B. Since the new commuter rail operation would introduce railroad tracks and train traffic to a historic farm setting, this will result in an adverse affect to the setting and feeling of the farms. The Jillson Farm would still be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places because it would still be clear that this is an active farm. Since the Hingley Farm is important primarily because of the farmhouse, it would likely no longer be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad, Denver& Boulder Valley Branch (5WL.1969, 5BF130) would be used under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. However, after mitigation as described in Section 5.6.1, this would result in relatively low severity of effects to the protected activities, attributes and features of this property. Package A would also use an additional two properties not used under the Preferred Alternative or Package B. These are the Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244). In these cases the remaining harm, after mitigation, would still be severe because the primary buildings on each property would be acquired and demolished. To summarize, the relative severity of the remaining harm to the one historic property (the Louden Ditch) used by Package B is such that its significant features are maintained. The one park property (the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park), after mitigation, would have its attributes and functions fully replaced. For the Preferred Alternative, the Section 4(f) uses of the Louden Ditch, the Denver/Kansas UPRR, the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park and the Jillson Farm are all such that mitigation would effectively alleviate harm so that their integrity and significance is maintained. The use • of the Hingley Farm is such that the relative severity of the remaining harm results in a loss of its significance. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-252 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. For Package A, similar to the Preferred Alternative, the Section 4(f) uses of the Louden Ditch, the Denver/Kansas UPRR, the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park and the Jillson Farm are all such that mitigation would effectively alleviate harm so that their integrity and significance is maintained. The relative severity of the remaining harm to the Hingley Farm, the Old City Electric Building, and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Railroad Depot however, are all such that their significance, features or attributes would be lost because the primary buildings on each property would be acquired and demolished. In comparison, Package A, because the commuter rail component must be double tracked to meet the project purpose and need, uses three properties for which the relative severity of remaining harm to each property's significant features is such that these three historic properties lose their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places; Package B uses no properties that fall within this definition; and the Preferred Alternative uses one property for which the relative severity of remaining harm to that property's significant features is such that it would no longer be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. For a project of this scale, including improvements to 619.5 lineal miles of highway lanes or passenger rail tracks, along three separate corridors, this minimal use of historic properties demonstrates the efforts that have been undertaken to avoid and minimize uses of historic properties. In northern Colorado the prevalence of historic farm houses and lands is high. These properties are fairly common and similar. Therefore the differences between Package B and the Preferred Alternative, considering the remaining severity of harm are very small. 5.6.3 Relative Significance of Each Property • The relative significance of the various types of Section 4(f) historic properties that are used, as they relate to other examples of that type in the regional study area is as follows: ► The Old City Electric Building (used only by Package A) in Longmont was one of the first municipally owned electric generation plants and exhibits unique characteristics in the regional study area as such. ► The Hingley Farm and, the Jillson Farm are both examples of historic farms and ranches, of which there are many in the regional study area. Neither farm has any particular unique attributes or features that make it special among the other farms in the regional study area. ► The Denver Pacific/Kansas Pacific/Union Pacific/Denver and Boulder Valley Railroad branch is no more unique than other railroad tracks still evident on the Plains and in this region. The Colorado & Southern/BNSF Railroad Depot, however, is one of just a few depots associated with the development of the railroads in the regional study area and is a very good example of that infrastructure. The Depot is used only by Package A. ► The Louden Ditch can be most appropriately viewed in a context of the nature of the regional study area, which is a historic agricultural area with hundreds of agricultural ditches. It has no special or unique features in comparison with the other ditches in the regional study area. ► The McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park is the smallest and least important of the three sculpture parks in the City of Loveland. It was originally placed in this location to serve as a quiet gateway to the City. This function has been compromised by the higher intensity • development that has occurred in the area, and would be further compromised by the US 34 interchange improvements planned as a part of all three build alternatives. Even if no use of this property occurs, the high retaining walls would cut off views of the mountains Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-253 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • and views of the US 34 motorists of the sculptures in the park. For these reasons, the opinion of the Official with Jurisdiction is that the current location of the park no longer serves its original intent. The significance and value of this park is not tied to the current location. To summarize the differences in the build alternatives, only Package A uses properties that are of particular significance within the regional study area (the Old City Electric Building and the Colorado and Southern /BNSF Railroad Depot). The other two alternatives use portions of properties (historic farmsteads, ditches, railroads and a park)that have no outstanding characteristics or significance when compared to other similar properties within the regional study area. 5.6.4 Views of the Officials with Jurisdiction The officials with jurisdiction that have been coordinated with include the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Parks and Recreation representative from Loveland. The views of the SHPO on the relative significance and value of the historic properties are based on documentation from the Section 106 determinations of eligibility and effects. The views of the official with jurisdiction concerning the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park come from a meeting held with that official with jurisdiction. The SHPO's opinion about the Old City Electric Building and the Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot is that these properties represent important and significant elements of infrastructure development. The SHPO's opinion about the Louden Ditch is that it is one of 16 eligible ditches in the • regional study area and is no more or less significant than the other 15 ditches. Similarly, the segment of the Denver/Kansas/UP Railroad is not more significant than other historic railroads in the Front Range and its conversion of use to an active commuter rail line is entirely consistent with its historic use. The view of the Official with Jurisdiction related to the McWhinney Hahn Sculpture Park is that the effects to the park property, including impediments to the views of the sculpture park from US 34 and from users of the park to the Rocky Mountains are such that the activities, attributes, and features of the park could no longer serve the original intended use as a gateway to Loveland. Therefore, a replacement property that would substitute for the park is the most appropriate mitigation. To summarize, because the Old City Electric Building and the Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot Building are of higher significance within the regional study area, the Section 4(f) uses associated with Package A would be of greater concern from the SHPO. Neither Package B nor the Preferred Alternative would use these two buildings. 5.6.5 Degree to Which Each Alternative Meets the Purpose and Need of the Project When considering all of the different components of the project purpose and need, the Preferred Alternative cumulatively meets these to a greater extent than the other two build alternatives as described below: Need to Address the Increased Frequency and Severity of Crashes 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 Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-254 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation transportation. (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 from arterials to 1-25. The Preferred Alternative would result in only 11 average annual transit injuries compared to Package B, which would have 24 average annual injuries on transit. Package A would result in the fewest transit injuries per 1,000 revenue hours of service at 0.15; the Preferred Alternative is very similar with 0.16 injuries per 1,000 revenue hours of service. Package B would result in the highest transit injury rate at 0.32 injuries per 1,000 revenue hours of service. Need to Address the Increasing Traffic Congestion on 1-25, Leading to Mobility and Accessibility Problems The Preferred Alternative provides the most efficient operations for 1-25 compared to Packages A and B. A comparison of the traffic elements of the mobility portion of the purpose and need demonstrates that the Preferred Alternative provides the highest benefit: ► Its remaining congested miles on 1-25 general purpose lanes in the PM peak hour would be • noticeably less at 17 miles, compared to 45 miles with Package B and 44 miles with Package A in 2035. ► In the AM peak hour, its remaining congested miles on general purpose lanes are only 11, compared to 30 with Package B and 16 with Package A in 2035. ► In 2035, it has the fewest number of interchange ramp merge/diverge locations operating at LOS E or F. The Preferred Alternative would have 13 of these in the AM peak period and 26 in the PM. Package B would have 34 in the AM and 52 in the PM. Package A would have 30 in the AM and 34 in the PM. ► It has the fastest highway travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street in the general purpose lanes (107 minutes compared to 117 minutes with the other two alternatives in 2035). ► It has the fastest travel time from SH 1 to 20th Street in the tolled express lanes in 2035 (64 minutes compared to 65 minutes with Package B and 102 minutes with Package A (which only uses a short section of existing tolled express lanes in the Denver metro area and the remaining trip is in general purpose lanes). ► It provides the most travel choices on 1-25 allowing a motorist to pay a toll or carpool to avoid congestion, or choose to travel toll free in the general purpose lanes, or choose express bus. ► It has the fastest bus transit service from the South Transit Center to 20th Street at 63 minutes for an express bus, compared to 70 minutes for BRT with Package B. ► Similar to Package B the tolled express lanes provide an opportunity to maintain reliable travel time for buses, H0Vs and toll paying users in perpetuity. • ► Because the Preferred Alternative would have the best level of service in the general purpose lanes, it would have the best overall mobility for freight traffic. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.255 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • ► It would serve the highest number of users on 1-25 at over 990,000 users (number of vehicles entering this length of 1-25 multiplied by vehicle occupancy. See Section 4.2.5 Highway Users for an explanation of the calculation). ► It captures the second highest percentage of transit market share between the northern front range area and the downtown Denver CBD at 50 percent in 2035. Package A captures the highest percentage at 55 percent and Package B captures 45 percent. ► It has the second highest ridership with 6,500 daily riders while Package B captures the highest ridership at 6,800 daily riders as a result of its frequent and robust BRT service. Package A captures the fewest riders with 5,850 daily. ► Regional vehicle hours of travel are the least with the Preferred Alternative at 1.68 million compared to1.69 million with Package B and 1.70 million with Package A in 2035. ► It produces the highest amount of vehicle miles of travel at 52.81 as a result of its higher capacity than the other two packages. Package B produces the least amount of regional VMT at 52.62 and Package A produces 52.76. ► Its regional average speed (including freeways and other facilities) in 2035 is the highest (31.4 miles per hour) compared to 31.1 with the other two build alternatives — a notable increase considering the magnitude of the number of miles and number of hours in the region used to calculate average miles per hour. Need to Replace Aging and Functionally Obsolete Infrastructure The Preferred Alternative and Package B both provide the most new structures which replace • aging structures: 94, compared to 87 with Package A. All of the alternatives would replace all of the pavement that has exceeded its useful life. Need to Provide Modal Alternatives The Preferred Alternative provides the most opportunity for improved mode choice throughout the regional study area. In addition, it allows the ability to implement transit service with minimal initial infrastructure investment. Overall the Preferred Alternative addresses this element of purpose and need in the following ways: ► The Preferred Alternative would provide the most opportunity to use multiple modes of travel, since two or more modes would be provided along three separate corridors: commuter rail would be provided on the US 287 corridor; express bus and carpooling on TELs on 1-25; and commuter bus service would be provided on US 85. Package A would provide multiple modes on only two corridors and Package B would provide multiple modes on only one corridor. ► The express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could be fairly easily implemented and implemented in phases, providing near term multimodal options to commuters traveling the North 1-25 and US 85 corridors. BRT service provided as a part of Package B would be harder to implement in phases because stations are located in the median, requiring reconstruction of 1-25. ► Given the uncertainty of the schedules for the FasTracks North Metro and Northwest Rail corridors, express bus service provided as a part of the Preferred Alternative could provide an additional mode choice that would first supplement and then complement the FasTracks • commuter rail corridors. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-256 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. ► It would attract the highest level of special event ridership (transit trips to sporting events, the theater and other activities in downtown Denver), due to the range of transit options that can accessed for these discretionary trips. To summarize, the Preferred Alternative best responds to the four elements of Purpose and Need. Regional safety is improved the most with the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative reduces congestion on 1-25 to a noticeably greater degree than the other alternatives. It also results in dramatically shorter travel times for highway users, tolled express lane users and bus patrons. And because it includes tolled express lanes, the faster travel time for users of those lanes is a more reliable travel option over time. The Preferred Alternative also provides the most opportunity to use multiple modes of travel, since two or more modes would be provided along three separate corridors: ► commuter rail would be provided along the US 287 corridor ► express bus, vanpooling and carpooling on TEL lanes would be provided on 1-25, along with noticeable improvements to travel in general purpose lanes ► commuter bus service would be provided on US 85 And it, along with Package B, requires reconstruction of more of the 1-25 structures, thus replacing more of the aging infrastructure that is an important element of Purpose and Need. 5.6.6 Magnitude, After Mitigation, of Adverse Impacts to Other • Resources After reasonable mitigation, the adverse impacts to other resources as a result of the Preferred Alternative would include impacts to established communities and businesses, including relocations and noise impacts. Traffic noise impacts (after mitigation)would occur to 840 receivers under the Preferred Alternative as compared to 826 receivers with Package A and 848 receivers with Package B. The Preferred Alternative would result in 8 fewer residential (51 compared to 59) and 10 fewer business (23 compared to 33) displacements than Package A. Compared to Package B, the Preferred Alternative would result in 51 residential displacements (27 more than Package B) and 23 business displacements (7 more than Package B). Even though there is a noticeable difference in residential and business relocations among the alternatives, the availability of replacement housing and business sites would not indicate that this remaining adverse impact would be of high magnitude. After mitigation, an adverse effect to established communities would still result from the addition of commuter rail under Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Commuter rail will operate on a more frequent basis than the freight rail along the same corridor(with the addition of a second set of tracks under Package A) and the addition of commuter rail along the alignment between Longmont and the FasTracks North Metro corridor, where no rail service currently exists, would create a new barrier between communities. The existing barrier created by the freight rail service would also be somewhat exacerbated. The magnitude of this impact, however is offset by the fact that there is already rail service along most of this corridor and the substantial benefit to be gained by the new rail service that would be available to the adjacent residents, businesses and business patrons. • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-257 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • The Preferred Alternative results in the least impacts to: ► Wetlands and jurisdictional open waters (18.2 acres compared to 21.3 acres with Package B and 21.9 acres with Package A) ► Sensitive wildlife habitat (1.9 acres compared to 2.4 acres with Package B and 2.0 acres with Package A) ► Aquatic habitat (1.5 acres compared to 2.3 acres with Package B and 1.8 acres with Package A) ► Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat (0.7 acre compared to 0.8 acre with Package A and Package B) In general, the magnitude and severity of the impacts of the three build alternatives to the natural environment are relatively similar taking into account the size of the project. The Preferred Alternative has fewer impacts to the habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, a federally threatened species. The Preferred Alternative also has the least impacts to aquatic resources. On the other hand, the Preferred Alternative has more impacts than either of the other build alternatives to bald eagle foraging habitat and raptor nests and it has more impervious surface than Package A. The Preferred Alternative results in impacts to some resources that are greater than the other alternatives: impacts to bald eagle foraging habitat, noise impacts from rail transit and number of raptor nests potentially impacted. The Preferred Alternative results in the least impact to the following resources: wetlands and jurisdictional open waters, Preble's meadow jumping • mouse habitat, sensitive wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat and northern leopard frog and common garter snake habitat. It is the view of FHWA and CDOT that the Preferred Alternative has the least impacts to aquatic resources and therefore has the most likelihood of all build alternatives to meet the Section 404(b)(1) requirements to secure an individual Section 404 permit from the USACE. 5.6.7 Substantial Differences in Cost A tabulation of costs for the three build alternatives shows that the Preferred Alternative is more than the other two build alternatives. Package A capital cost is $1.96 billion, Package B capital cost is $1.72 billion and the Preferred Alternative is $2.18 billion. However, the Preferred Alternative provides benefits that the other two alternatives do not. The Preferred Alternative: ► Better improves regional safety compared to the other two build alternatives ► Reduces congestion more effectively than Package A or Package B ► Is similar to the other alternatives in replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure ► Is superior to the other alternatives in providing modal options ► Better addresses goals of the land use plans in the northern Colorado communities ► Achieves system wide benefits that Package A and B do not provide such as regional connectivity and travel reliability • ► Better supports livability concepts than Package A and Package B by providing a more comprehensive multimodal system of transportation improvements Section 4(f)Evaluation 5.258 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • information cooperation. transportation. 5.6.8 Summary The determination of least overall harm was made by the lead agencies using primarily three factors: (1) the relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualifies each property for protection, (2) the degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project, and (3) after reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f). The reasons these factors were emphasized was based on the importance that they play in furthering the Section 4(f) intent, the public benefit provided by the investment in infrastructure and meeting other federal requirements that protect the natural environment. The Preferred Alternative is identified as the alternative with the least overall harm because: the severity of the remaining harm to Section 4(f) properties is similar between Package B and the Preferred Alternative and much less severe than Package A; the Preferred Alternative demonstrates the highest degree of meeting the purpose and need, thus providing a superior transportation benefit; and the Preferred Alternative in the view of FHWA and has the least impacts to aquatic resources and therefore has the most likelihood of all build alternatives to meet the Section 404(b)(1) requirements. To summarize, the Preferred Alternative is considered to be the least overall harm alternative per 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1) based on: 1. The relative severity of remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes or features that qualifies each property for protection. The Preferred Alternative uses one additional Section 4(f) property with a resulting higher severity of harm than • Package B. Although mitigation includes the documentation of the farm, the actual character defining features of this property would be destroyed. This property, the Hingley Farm, is a common type of property in Northern Colorado and does not have unique characteristics that would set it apart from other similar type historic properties. In comparison, Package B does not use a historic property to this relative severity. However, for a project of this scale, including improvements to 619.5 lineal miles of highway lanes or passenger rail tracks, along three separate corridors, this minimal use of historic properties demonstrates the efforts that have been undertaken to avoid and minimize uses of historic properties resulting in a conclusion that the overall severity of these impacts from these alternatives is similar. 2. The degree to which the Preferred Alternative meets the purpose and need for the project. The degree to which the Preferred Alternative meets the purpose and need of the project is much higher than the other alternatives, resulting in a transportation benefit that is clearly superior. The Preferred Alternative improves regional safety. The Preferred Alternative reduces congestion on 1-25 to a noticeably greater degree than the other alternatives. It also results in dramatically shorter travel times for highway users, tolled express lane users and bus patrons. The benefits of tolled express lanes include the faster travel time for users of those lanes and a more reliable travel option over time. The Preferred Alternative also provides the most opportunity to use multiple modes of travel, since two or more modes would be provided along three separate corridors: • commuter rail would be provided on US 287 corridor, in addition to the auto and bus travel currently provided along US 287; and • Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-259 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS information cooperation. transportation. • • express bus, vanpooling and carpooling on TEL lanes would be provided on 1-25, along with noticeable improvements to travel in general purpose lanes; and • commuter bus service would be provided on US 85 in addition to auto travel already on US 85. 3. The magnitude, after reasonable mitigation, of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f). In general, the magnitude and severity of the impacts of the three build alternatives to the natural environment are relatively similar taking into account the size of the project. The Preferred Alternative results in impacts to some resources that are greater than the other alternatives: impacts to bald eagle foraging habitat, noise impacts from rail transit and number of raptor nests potentially impacted. The Preferred Alternative results in the least impact to the following natural resources: wetlands and jurisdictional open waters, Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat, sensitive wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat and northern leopard frog and common garter snake habitat. It is the view of FHWA and CDOT that the Preferred Alternative has the least impacts to aquatic resources and therefore has the most likelihood of all build alternatives to meet the Section 404(b)(1) requirements to secure an individual Section 404 permit from the USAGE. For the remaining four least overall harm factors, the relative differences among the three alternatives is slight between the Preferred Alternative and Package B and a greater difference when comparing Package A, as demonstrated in the following text: ► The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(t) property associated with the Preferred Alternative is, for a project of this scale, similar to that of Package B. The • Preferred Alternative results in an inability to mitigate adverse impacts to only one Section 4(f) property, compared to none with Package B. Package A is unable to fully mitigate adverse impacts to three Section 4(f) properties. ► The relative significance of each Section 4(t) property used is indistinguishable between the Preferred Alternative and Package B. Only Package A uses properties that are of unique significance or value within the regional study area. The other two alternatives use portions of properties (historic farms, ditches, railroads and a park)that have no outstanding characteristics or significance when compared to other similar types of historic properties within the regional study area. ► The views of the officials with jurisdiction mirrors the relative significance of the Section 4(f) properties, which is that Package B and the Preferred Alternative are nearly indistinguishable. Because the Old City Electric Building and the Colorado and Southern/BNSF Depot building have unique characteristics within the regional study area, the Section 4(f) uses associated with Package A would be of greater concern from the SHPO. Both Package B and the Preferred Alternative avoid these two properties. ► And finally, any substantial differences in cost are not a major factor because although the Preferred Alternative costs the most, its benefits far outweigh the additional costs. When compared to the other two alternatives, it better improves regional safety, reduces congestion more effectively, is similar in the replacement of aging infrastructure, and is superior in providing modal options. It also better addresses goals of the land use plans of northern Colorado communities, achieves system wide regional connectivity and travel reliability benefits and better supports livability concepts by providing a more • comprehensive system of multimodal improvements. Section 4(f)Evaluation 5-260 Hello