The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112398.tiff Nortfi -1 NORrHIa25r EIS . - 25 information . cooperation , transportation .rlila EliviroPmerita . RI p8cit . . _ ....._....., .. . . __,,, ,; • _ ... _ ........,...r__ ..„........ ....i.,_. __ et' -- --Is - . • . . neggs•alogrri . ....-• iw•-w-N - • "-It State RI 6 rit ,. _. _ _ .. .. . _ .. __tn ....J.. _ . ......., .„..... .... , _ ......_ . .„ ...._ ..._ . .. _ _ . . ..,. • ,_. y ,F ,P __ , . .. .tom. i . .. f r- er, - [- to .j _s �-� ` ��6.r��t r r+ .• z_r�-.` a • i�j / -cji.1.- ' IN 1 A� 1 t * - i� / � • — — - 0C...1 I :71 % J, • f a•' r ! - ' w i"t:It y� y •a// ; • • - ` ` ��yy�+ rJ. Z 104* - t 1 11 t , ,+� a d Y• a/' `•_ ~ _ . 1 . d • • S A y/ • tis. --- •1��- dam..%�� . il 1 I4.•f .,'".5.72.,...•44.4., • .. .... , . . .�,- ,. ., � _ , 1. ° ,-,;14i. ' •., �f Y• 1.44. • , inn 1r ",• .! " � -f at? •Itti "F. .ti.s�..1..7-.:‘. -.�1 ,rl., 7 Tin. • H1�A r „'> •_ l < 16 • iAV ��t -'Mi- .' Oil r .°14 CFi K IL r ', I. eliA ';" '. `1.11'. �Lf"'-. ,"y"�'�^7^ �la ,::acv i ,te '; f rtS = • , 1. ..'..M ,• :�.4i t�= _r' •�I •Ow r{•��1 i_ • 7�s.ai / .r a. VOLUME 3 of 3 ., .... f OT 2011 -2397 ir U.S. Deportment of Tron;porta• 2011 -2398 ila vFederal Highway August 2011 Administration APPENDIX E 1 1. • 46.Yy • 4 ;Can't. os ! � • ..4:".� •:•••• n..aa}y^�,.'♦. [ wi�c-Ct.1,y Y4 #it 'f.i�.`�• • . .\ -. �. y� ,• cr. om' r.• `5y4Yta.c; ..a�� _ mss•!'•' X�- om' gency Coorffinaton N ORTH I-25 EIS information . cooperation. transportation . o?0//- 02398 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX E FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY COORDINATION This appendix documents federal and state agency coordination that has occurred throughout the EIS process (listed in the order they are presented): Documentation Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials Multiple Resource Agencies January 19, 2004 Invitation letters to resource agency scoping meeting sent to 11 agencies February 26, 2004 Resource agency scoping meeting attended by EPA, USFWS, SHPO, RTD, and DRCOG May 2, 2006 Resource agency scopinq meeting attended by USAGE, USFWS, and CDOW April 10, 2007 Section 404 field meeting with EPA, USAGE, and CDOW July 27, 2007 Response memo to comments from the April 10th Section 404 field meeting Regional Coordination Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee See Table 9-1 in Minutes of meetings with the Regional Coordination Committee and the Technical Chapter 9 Advisory Committee (a list of those meeting dates is included in Table 9-1) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) January 13, 2004 Scoping Meeting with FHWA and FTA • January 21, 2004 Letter of invitation from CDOT to scoping meeting for resource agencies February 5, 2004 Letter from FHWA and FTA to USAGE requesting them to be cooperating agency March 5, 2004 Letter from USAGE accepting FHWA invitation to be cooperating agency April 21, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, FTA, EPA, and CDOT June 14, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, EPA, and CDOT December 8, 2004 Meeting with FHWA,EPA, and CDOT to discuss purpose and need, alternative screening process March 2, 2005 Meeting with FHWA and CDOT to discuss purpose and need, and evaluation criteria for screening May 11, 2005 Meeting with FHWA, USFWS, EPA, and CDOT to concur on purpose and need and discuss Level 2 screening July 19, 2005 Transmittal letter from FHWA to USAGE for Purpose and Need Statement July 25, 2005 Letter from USAGE to FHWA concurring on Purpose and Need Statement May 15, 2006 Meeting with USFWS, FHWA, EPA, and CDOT to update USAGE on status of the 404 Merger Process August 4, 2006 Letter from FHWA to USAGE requesting concurrence on alternatives for detailed evaluation August 9, 2006 Letter from USAGE to FHWA concurring on alternatives for detailed Evaluation July 29, 2008 Letter from USAGE to CDOT concurring with Wetland Delineation Report, Corps File No. 200480110 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team April 21, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, FTA, USAGE, and CDOT (see minutes in the USAGE section) May 17, 2004 Letter with 11 pages of scoping comments to FTA and FHWA June 14, 2004 Meeting with FHWA, USACE, and CDOT(see minutes in the USAGE section) July 15, 2004 Meeting with FHWA and CDOT at EPA to discuss scoping comments • Agency Coordination Page E-1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 MR August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Documentation Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials December 8, 2004 Meeting with FHWA and USACE to discuss purpose and need, alternative screening process (see minutes in the USAGE section) May 11, 2005 Meeting with FHWA, USFWS, and USACE to concur on purpose and need and discuss Level 2 screening (see minutes in the USACE section) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team March 1, 2004 Scoping meeting at FRA March 10, 2004 Letter from FHWA and FTA to FRA requesting them to be cooperating agency April 5, 2004 Letter from FRA agreeing to support the study as required U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team February 20, 2004 Letter from USFWS to CDOT with review comments on the Notice of Intent U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) October 27, 2004 Letter sent to four District Offices of the NRCS requesting lists of any soils that are Prime or Unique Farmland, and/or Farmlands of Statewide or Local Importance October 29, 2004 Letter from the NCRS Platte Valley District November 1, 2004 Letter and list from the NCRS Greeley Field Office September 4, 2007 Letter sent to four District Offices of the NRCS presenting impacts to Prime and Important Farmlands, and requesting return of the Farmland Conversion Impact rating form • October 9, 2007 Letter with rating form for Larimer County October 2007 Conversion Impact rating form for Boulder/Broomfield County October 2007 Conversion Impact rating form for Adams County October 2007 Conversion Impact rating form for Weld County Tribal Consultation March 4, 2004 Letter from FHWA to Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, inviting them to be consulting parties in Section 106 process April 20, 2004 Letter from FTA/FHWA to 31 Indian tribes, inviting them to be consulting parties in Section 106 process May 12, 2004 Correspondence from Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma to CDOT agreeing to be a consulting party July 20, 2004 Letter from FHWA to White Mesa Ute Tribe, inviting them to be consulting parties in Section 106 process July 23, 2004 Letter from FHWA to tribes (Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes of Oklahoma, Northern Arapaho Tribe), inviting them to be consulting parties in Section 106 process August 2004 Sec.106 Tribal Consultation Interest Response Forms received from 3 tribes (Southern Ute Tribe, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Northern Cheyenne Tribe) State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO) January 29, 2007 CDOT letter to SHPO for review of Area of Potential Effects (APE) March 12, 2007 CDOT letter to SHPO clarifying APE boundary, requesting agreement on it May 1, 2007 Letter from CDOT to 13 preservation organizations inviting them to be consulting parties May 4, 2007 Letter from Greeley Historic Preservation agreeing to be a consulting party June 26, 2007 Letter to CDOT from Fort Lupton re: access to a park August 8, 2007 Letter to CDOT from the City of Greeley re: determinations of not eligible • Agency Coordination Page E-2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Documentation Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials August 21, 2007 Letter to CDOT from the SHPO with questions on 12 resources October 4, 2007 CDOT letter to SHPO with information in response to the August 215t letter January 7, 2008 SHPO letter to CDOT concurring on eligibility of two neighborhoods October 6, 2008 CDOT letter to SHPO regarding additional determinations of eligibility for five properties Colorado State Parks December 1, 2006 Request for confirmation of parcels acquired with any Land and Water Conservation Funds January 22, 2007 Second letter of request for confirmation of parcels acquired with any Land and Water Conservation Funds March 8, 2007 Request for concurrence that the build alternatives would not impact any properties where LWCF monies were used Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team (see letter in USACE Section) May 2, 2006 Meeting with FHWA, USACE and USFWS on any agency concerns or new methodologies (see minutes in the USACE section) Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment(CDPHE) January 19, 2004 CDOT invitation letter to resource agency scoping meeting (see letter in Multiple Resource Agency Section) February 20, 2007 Meeting with FHWA, NPS, EPA, and CDOT on air quality in Rocky Mountain National Park • Colorado Department of Revenue December 8, 2006 Letter to four Dept of Revenue personnel transmitting technical memo for the new Port of Entry near Ft. Collins Colorado Geological Service January 21, 2004 Invitation to scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team Distribution of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials Various n/a I Draft EIS Distribution List Advisory Council on Historic Preservation October 29, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation USACE October 29, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the USACE Department of the Interior October 29, 2008 j Draft EIS distribution letter to the Department of Interior, Office of Environment Federal Railroad Administration October 29, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Development USFWS October 29, 2008 I Draft EIS distribution letter to the USFWS Tribal Consultation October 30, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma October 30, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Commanche Nation of Oklahoma • October 30, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Agency Coordination Page E-3 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Distribution of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials October 30, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Northern Araphao Business Council October 30, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe October 30, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma October 30, 2008 Draft EIS distribution letter to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe SHPO October 29, 2008 I Draft EIS distribution letter to the SHPO Colorado State Parks November 26, 2008 I Draft EIS distribution letter to the Colorado State Parks Documentation Following the Release of the Draft EIS Date Description of Materials Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment November 17, 2009 Minutes from meeting with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division to discuss the Regional Transportation Model U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) November 12, 2010 Letter sent to four U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) District Offices(Greeley, Ft. Collins, Longmont, & Brighton)of the NRCS presenting impacts to Prime and Important Farmlands, and requesting return of the Farmland Conversion Impact rating form December 14, 2010 Conversion Impact rating form for Weld County December 14, 2010 Conversion Impact rating form for Larimer County • December 14, 2010 Conversion Impact rating form for Adams County January 5, 2011 Conversion Impact rating form for Boulder/Broomfield Counties April 25, 2011 Letter from NRCS USFWS August 4, 2011 Letter from FHWA to the USFWS submitting the Programmatic Biological Assessment State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO) November 5, 2010 CDOT letter to SHPO requesting concurrence with the Determinations of Eligibility for 38 additional sites November 29, 2010 SHPO letter to CDOT regarding additional determinations of eligibility for one property(5LR.995.6) December 9, 2010 CDOT letter to SHPO containing additional information for one property (5LR.995.6) January 3, 2011 SHPO correspondence concurring on eligibility of 38 additional sites Colorado State Parks March 30, 2011 Meeting minutes from meeting with Colorado State Parks to discuss wetland mitigation associated with St. Vrain State Park April 21, 2011 Meeting minutes from meeting with Colorado State Parks to discuss wetland mitigation associated with St. Vrain State Park June 14, 2011 Meeting minutes from meeting with Colorado State Parks to discuss Wetland Mitigation Plan Review associated with St. Vrain State Park Colorado Parks and Wildlife June 3, 2011 Letter to Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife)requesting concurrence on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area July 25, 2011 Letter of concurrence from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife on the Section 4(f) Determination for the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area • Agency Coordination Page E-4 Agency Coordination Prior to the Release of the Draft EIS • • Page E-5 • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Page E-6 STATE: OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four •OT 1A?D 2"Street eta ommt Greeley.CO 80631 modiminziommom.... PI PAIl1 ql.\I f8 IP V.51,011 I (970)35O-2146 (Fax)350-2198 Distribution list is attached. 1 January 19,2004 «frame» ulname» «title» «agency» <<dept» «addl» uadd2» «citystatei.ip>, Re: North 1-25 Front.Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting • Dear Mr. «lname»: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31. 2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: 1. Taking to action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the sc pinL1 meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday, February 26,2004 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 Page E-7 fnarne,>olname>, January 2004 i9; «agency�> • Page 2 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on ally particular issues you wish LIS to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely. David M. Martinez Project Manager C:DOT N. 1-25 Front Range EIS ec: Project File • 1: TranspurtaUcn`;071609A00';manzge?corr‘Ag^_ncy't,Rescurce Agency-gr.agc • Page E-8 • ® r �r • NORTH 1-25 FRONT RANGE EIS NORTH 1-25 FRONT RANGE EIS Resource Agency Contact List (11 ) David Noe Alison Deans-Michael Chief of Engineering Geology U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Geological Survey 755 Parfet, Suite 361 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Lakewood, CO 80215 Denver, CO 80203 Tim Carey Suzette Thieman U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transportation Planning Manager Tri-Lakes Project Office North Front Range MPO Offices 9307 S. Platte Canyon Road 235 Mathews Street Littleton, CO 80128 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Steve Fender Aaron Linstrom Principal Regional Inspector Terrestrial Biologist Federal Railroad Administration Colorado Division of Wildlife 555 Zang Street, Suite 263 Denver Service Center and Denver, CO 80228 Northeast Region Office • 6060 Broadway Dan Corson Denver, CO 80216 State Historic Preservation Office 1300 Broadway Howard Roitman Denver, CO 80203 Acting Director of Environmental Programs Scott Weeks Colorado Department of Public Regional Transportation District Health and Environment 1600 Blake Street HMWMD-ADM-B2 Denver, CO 80202 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 George Scheuernstuhl Denver Regional Council of Deborah Lebow Governments Environmental Protection Agency 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 800 NEPA—EcoSystem Protection Denver CO 80246-1531 Mail Stop 8EPR-EP 999 18th Street Denver, CO 80202 Iransp3rtation;07IGCS•100,rianageuorr,Agenci,Reource A9erKy_itr clot • Page E-9 rem / ® , gy p M \ NORTH I-25 FRONT RANGE EIS MEETING MINUTES Project: North I-25 Front Range EIS Purpose: Resource Agency Scoping Meeting Date Held: February 26, 2004 Location: CDOT Region 4, Loveland Residency Attendees: CDOT: Pete Graham, Bob Garcia, David Martinez, Beth Chase, Carol Parr EPA: Robert Edgar, Deborah Lebow SHPO: Amy Pallante DRCOG: Jennifer Edwards RTD: David Krutsinger FTA: John Dow FHU: Tom Anzia FHWA: Jean Wallace USFWS: Alison Michael C&B: Kim Gambrill, Gina McAfee, Wendy Wallach Copies: Attendees, Stan Elmquist, Holly Miller, Gail Keeley, Kirk Webb, Art Hirsch, • File#071609.400 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Following introductions, Gina described the five primary purposes for this meeting: a. Describe the project and possible issues. b. Identify sources of information. c. Ask resource agencies to determine significant or non-significant issues. d. Ask agencies to identify any concerns to be evaluated in cumulative effects analysis. e. Consider if the study area is appropriate. 2. Gina then described the project purpose and some of the more important environmental issues to be addressed in the EIS. At the conclusion of this presentation, the resource agency representatives were asked if there were additional questions or concerns to be discussed. These included: a. Robert Edgars, EPA Question: Who will sign the ROD? What will be screened out during Phase I of the data collection? Answer: Gina explained the two-tier data collection effort in greater detail. b. Amy Pallante Question: Will this be a programmatic EIS? Answer No. Page E-10 Meeting Minutes—North I-25 Front Range EIS_Resource Agency Scoping Meeting February 26, 2004 • page 2 c. Deborah Lebow, EPA Question: Are there any corridor alignments being identified thus far? Answer Not really, although we anticipate looking at existing highway and railroad lines. d. Bob Garcia: There is a study titled Weld County's Parallel Corridors Study that looks at alternative corridors to 1-25. The project team needs to be aware of this as we proceed. e. Tom Anzia: We've gotten some input on regional travel patterns but not much on local and community travel patterns. We are working to identify community traffic and travel patterns. f. Robert Edgar, EPA Question: What's the time frame for the study? Answer The draft and final EISs will be completed in a little over three years. Travel Demand modeling will have to blend DRCOG and NFRACOG models and a piece of the Upper Front Range planning area, so this will take some time to complete the model. In addition, the sheer size of the study area will require more time. 3. The agency representatives then identified specific issues and concerns to be addressed in the EIS: • a. RTD had the following comments: • Relative to the North Metro Study, we need to look at downstream effects on 1-25. • FasTracks will probably go to the ballot this November. If it passes, an interregional system will be more feasible. b. DRCOG had the following comments: • DRCOG has rail concerns. They are working on 2030 plan. Potentially, they would include FasTracks in transit network, but rail north from Longmont to unknown termini may be included in the transit network as well as rail north from SH 7 to 160th. • Metrovision plan identifies k25 up to eight lanes up to SH 7. • The Front Range Commuter Bus Study should be reflected in the North 1-25 Study. • The DRCOG TAC has requested to review purpose and need. We would likely present them with information in late spring. Jennifer Edwards will be participating in our TAC. c. USFWS • Refer to their scoping letter. • • South Platte water depletion issue—this is an evolving program which is also a big issue for EPA. We will need to work together to identify an approach for this issue. Page E-11 Meeting Minutes—North I-25 Front Range EIS_Resource Agency Scoping Meeting February 26, 2004 page 3 • d. SHPO • Is the study area the area of potential effect? (No: This won't be determined until Phase II data collection.) • Would appreciate an early coordination meeting on the data collection methodology. Phase I is usually general reconnaissance and Phase II is where you define the A.P.E. and do an intensive level survey. • Concerned about secondary effects of highway projects on historic downtown areas of communities, if the widening would increase traffic. (Tom Anzia is also concerned with all modes.) Look at secondary effects under 106. • Also concerned about land use changes that will result, especially to rural and undeveloped communities. • At what stage will Section 4(f) properties be identified? We will start looking at potential 4(f) properties immediately but won't do eligibility determinations until Phase II data collection. e. EPA offered the following comments: • Other ongoing studies include the North Front Range Step Up Study(an FHWA pilot • program looking at transportation and land use). These findings should be included in our analysis. • Very happy we're looking at the Ozone Early Action Compact and using the Delphi technique on induced growth. • EPA will comment on the Purpose and Need statement. On other projects, EPA is looking to simplify those statements. Gina said we are trying to finalize this so the sooner we can get input, the better. • EJ needs to be addressed in this study area. Project Team will develop several possible approaches and coordinate with EPA on this. This methodology needs to be consistent with US 36 Corridor and 1-70 East Corridor EIS. North 1-25 will include specialized targeted outreach; we have already begun to identify potential areas for outreach. Bob said we should look at EJ done for the US 287 EA. • South Platte water depletion is important to EPA right now. Please work with them to address this. • What is the highway-widening project along 1-25 that's underway now and how does this fit in with the North 1-25 study? • Very glad there are multiple alternatives being considered. • Need to ensure the public is given an opportunity to comment on issues they can • understand. Must compare impacts to the existing conditions, particularly for air quality. Need existing air quality modeled. Give each alternative equal consideration. Page E-12 Meeting Minutes—North I-25 Front Range EIS_Resource Agency Scoping Meeting February 26, 2004 • page 4 • Ozone non-attainment is an issue so reasonable mitigation measures, including measures outside the preview of CDOT, that could mitigate impacts (i.e., stage I and stage II vapor controls for petroleum vapor capture would dramatically reduce NOC emissions) are important. The ROD can include recommendations for mitigation measures outside their control. The public can make comment on this and make suggestions to different entities regarding mitigation. 4. The agency representatives were then asked to provide input on cumulative issues. Secondary and cumulative impacts to historic districts (identified earlier by SHPO). EPA is concerned with: • Land Use Impacts. • Water quality and supply/depletion. • Habitat fragmentation for wildlife, associated impacts to wetland and riparian communities. • Wetlands. • VMT (vehicle miles traveled) impacts on AQ. 5. Following this discussion of Cumulative Effects several additional comments and concerns were raised: • EPA would like us to figure out impacts to water quality from additional impervious • surface using the Driscoll model (for cumulative impacts). f� • Also, EPA feels it would be good to calculate the infrastructure costs of growth. • The lack of transit ridership numbers could be addressed through a good survey of potential riders (how much would you pay? How often would you use transit? Etc.). Perhaps this survey could be tied to the travel demand modeling we're doing. Tom feels that the model might be able to shed some light on "mode choice". We need to ensure that we have really defensible transit ridership projections. • DOW should be contacted for wildlife migration patterns in the area. Roland Wostl at CDOT is working on mapping some of these areas. This effort is called the "Connectivity Campaign" sponsored by CDOT and FHWA. • EPA: Any idea of total wetland acreage in the project area? This is unknown at this time. • Alison Michaels said a portion of this project will fall under the"shortgrass prairie programmatic" initiative. 6. At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed that this larger group should meet again at key points in the project development process, including when preliminary alternatives have been identified and prior to the release of the Draft EIS. Meanwhile, this group will be kept apprised of project progress through newsletters, E-mail updates, and meeting invites. • I:LTransportation\071609.400 manage\mtgs\minutes\Resource Agency_022604mef.doc Page E-13 NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Resource Agency Meeting MEETING DATE: May 2, 2006 LOCATION: SW Weld County Services Complex CDOT: Sharleen Bakeman, David Martinez, Steve Olson, Carol Parr, Jeff Peterson, Rebecca Pierce, Michelle Rabouin FHWA: Jean Wallace, Mike Vanderhoof ATTENDEES: USACE: Margaret Langworthy USFWS: Alison Michael CDOW: Eric Odell FHU: Gregg Mugele C&B: Gina McAfee, Wendy Wallach PREPARER: Carter:'Burgess Wendy Wallach Attendees, Dave Beckhouse, Dave Shelley, Lee Cryer, Bob Garcia, • COPIES: Stan Elmquist, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison, Steve Butler, Ron Beane, Lindsey Larson, Kim Podobnik, Bob Quinlan, Jill Schlaefer, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Introductions were made. 2. Gina stated the purpose for the meeting—to obtain new input regarding concerns, and new methodologies. She reviewed the study area and the phased data collection approach. She reviewed the Purpose and Need: safety, capability, mobility, and infrastructure. 3. Public and agency scoping was conducted and conceptual alternatives analysis has been completed. There are two lead federal agencies: FTA and FHWA. Alternatives advanced include additional general-purpose and managed lanes, commuter bus, BRT, commuter rail, improved interchanges and stations. The commuter rail vehicle type has not been selected. The No-Action Alternative includes: bridges, drainage structures, minor improvements. 4. We are still evaluating sites for station locations. The team is exploring the possibility of single tracking for portions of the commuter rail component. From Longmont east to SH 7 the rail would be in a new right-of-way. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-14 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Resource Agency Meeting May 2, 2006 2 of 4 5. Commuter bus includes bus stations (parking and drop off). This alternative includes feeder bus service which would be local system to feed bus or rail. 6. Mike Vanderhoof asked about right-of-way preservation shown on the study area map. Gina answered that this is part of FasTracks; right-of-way is set aside for future transit use. 7. There are maintenance facilities associated with each alternative package; size will be determined by operating plans. 8. Gina passed out the summary of public meetings held in January and February 2006. Twelve meetings have been held with average attendance of 30 people. Summary of public meetings: • Comments on interchange configuration • People felt 2030 was not far enough for evaluation. • How is fuel factored into this? • • Travel time of each mode. • How was transit selected (i.e., CR on western alignment versus CR on central alignment). What technology ended up where? • How will the study affect land use? 9. Since the town hall meeting, there have been a series of interchange reconstruction meetings. There are also transit station working groups. We are also working closely with local jurisdictions while siting stations. 10. Gina asked about South Platte River water depletion methodology. Alison said methodology is still undetermined, but she is anticipating it will be complete in late summer. First, determine whether or not we are using water from the South Platte River—for compaction or dust suppression. Compare historical water use versus new depletion; there may be some actions grandfathered in. 11. Environmental Justice (EJ): Gina reviewed what next steps are related to EJ. Small group outreach will occur soon. She noted areas where there may be special outreach conducted to Hmong populations. Sharleen said to work with Jonathan at CDR who did this for US 36. We are working to map concentrations of potential EJ areas and then select meeting locations, meet and document concerns. We will meet with the Steering Committee after we solicit input, but will invite Michelle Rabouin to a project team meeting in the interim. 12. Water Quality: Will not be using DRISCOLL model. Art has met with EPA and devised his own model. Copies of this methodology were available at the meeting. 13. Induced Growth: Concern from public, TAC and RCC. We are planning a methodology • similar to other projects—Delphi Plus. Land use could be changed as a result of these Federal Highway Administration a Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-15 NORTH 1-25 - EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Resource Agency Meeting May 2, 2006 3 of 4 alternatives. We will look at what environmental resources could be impacted by changes in land use. We have asked local agencies in station working groups about what kind of changes in land use could be associated with the North 1-25 proposed improvements. These will be documented as part of the Delphi Plus methodology. Sharleen stated we may have to revisit this issue; they are (CDOT) having a meeting with EPA on these kinds of issues. Sharleen said we don't need to wait for this meeting. It is more about defining roles and responsibilities. We may want to address this at a future meeting. Mike Vanderhoof asked if we are still working with local communities about growth. Gina said local agencies will play a role on the panel and provide additional input. 14. Air Quality: This area is part of the early action compact for ozone. There are also several maintenance areas and nitrogen deposition at RMNP. We will use the new MSAT guidance on this project because we are adding capacity. Mike Vanderhoof asked how to deal with NO2. Gina said we will likely do total burden • analysis similar to MSAT. Mike said it is an "upslope phenomena coming out of the Front Range." We may need to revisit air quality methodology with agencies. 15. Wetlands: We are in the process of doing delineations. We will come up with impacts and avoidance and minimization and then work with the Corps, EPA, and USFWS. We have a merger meeting with the Corps on May 15. Also, Gina mentioned looking at avoiding resources at the 392 interchange. 16. Wildlife: DOW said the big issue is more of a fishery issue: aquatic species impacts. Contact Eric Odell to schedule a meeting with the three project biologists. We should sit down with them to review conceptual design. Mike asked about SREP incorporating the "linking landscapes" study. We should review the SREP report to determine if there are corridors in our project area—make sure we incorporate considerations. 17. STEP UP, NFRMPO: Make sure we work in STEP UP information. Alison said we should evaluate our alternatives to determine effect to growth as it related to areas specified in the STEP UP plan. Gina said we will identify areas that could be subject to development impacts and we could flag these areas for CDOW, NFRMPO, and locals. We will plan a subsequent meeting to discuss those possible impacts. Mike Vanderhoof said it would be interesting to see if we target some corridors designated for protection by SREP. Are we looking at this as the cornerstone of our mitigation? Gina said since we do not yet know our impacts, we do not yet know mitigation. There are • Federal Highway Administration /Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-16 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Resource Agency Meeting May 2, 2006 4 of 4 places where we may choose to concentrate mitigation. Mike would like to start having this conversation soon—the earlier the better. 18. Gina asked if there were other issues. • DOW—more general issues, MBTA, raptor, nesting area. We want to be aware of these issues. They are documented in the previous scoping letter provided by USFWS. 19. Mike asked about the status of the schedule: We are in the process of surveying wetlands and cultural resources. Impacts won't be known until later this year or early next year. 20. Gina talked about potential impact areas: noise and vibration, EJ, wetlands, cultural resources, and Section 4(f). 21. Michelle asked about the summary of town hall meetings. She would like to review the answers to questions. The team is working on categorizing and summarizing them. General summary will be posted on the Web site and distributed to this group. • 22. Sharleen said there is robust conversation within TAC and RCC. She said we get regular feedback and this is quite an involved process so these packages have come down through that. Dave Martinez talked about the interactive workshop held with TAC/RCC to make sure we covered everything. He thinks we really captured everyone's desire in these two packages. 23. Gina said the biggest challenge is disconnect between what people want (transit) and what we can easily provide, because there are no funding mechanisms for transit and ridership forecast is just not there. Census data showed that it is a very dispersed population and employment is very dispersed. ACTION ITEMS: ❑ Follow-up with USFWS in early fall to obtain South Platte River water depletion issues. (Quinlan) ❑ Invite Michelle Rabouin to project progress meeting this summer after we start concentrated EJ outreach. (Wallach) El Coordinate with Sharleen on induced growth after CDOT meets with EPA. (McAfee) ❑ Revisit air quality methodology with agencies. (Schlaefer) ❑ Contact Jonathan at CDR about Longmont EJ outreach. (Wallach) El Schedule a meeting with the Division of Wildlife to review station locations. (Butler, ERO) ❑ Distribute Public Meetings Q&A Summary to the group. (Larson) • \_Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\resourceAgenry 05 0 2 0 6150.doc Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-17 NORTH 1-25 EIS AGENDA ,.;,r,,pR,tFOrl tfrItHh�,;i ,oq Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting Tuesday, April 10, 2007; 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Meet at Park-n-Ride at the southeast quadrant of US 119 and I-25 Interchange for tour in a van. PURPOSE OF MEETING 1. Review Waters of the U.S.; including wetland delineation,types and functions. 2. Review design alternatives, avoidance and minimization, and potential impacts. 3. Receive comments from COE /EPA/USFWS /CDOW. AGENDA 9:00 AM Van tour begins ► Meeting location—US 119 and I-25 Interchange Park-n-Ride ► Wetland site for review—St. Vrain River crossing of SH 119 ► Topic—Impact to roadside wetlands along SH 119 by commuter rail track. 10:00 AM ► Meeting location— 1-25 Frontage Road and St. V rain River Crossing ► Wetland site for review—St. Vrain River / Topic—Impact to St Vrain River by 1-25 highway improvements. Is there •, potential for wetland mitigation at St. Vrain State Park? 10:30 AM ► Meeting location— 1-25 Frontage Road and Big Thompson River Crossing ► Wetland site for review—Big Thompson River ► Topic— Impact to Big Thompson River by 1-25 highway improvements. Is there potential for wetland m itigation at Big Thompson State Wildlife Area? 11:30 AM ► Meeting location—I-25 rest area, (southbound 1-25. north of Poudre River Crossing ► Wetland site for review—Poudre River / Topic— Impact to Poudre River by 1-25 highway improvements. Is there potential for wetland mitigation at Arapaho Bend Natural Area or rest area? 12:00 PM ► Meeting ends, return to parking area. Invitees: Margaret Langworthy,COE Kendra Gabber( FHU Danielle Smith,C&B Alison Michael, USFWS Torn Anzia, FHU Gina McAfee,C&B Sarah Fowler,EPA Jeanne Sharps, FHU Bill Knapp,C&B Chad Morgan, CDOW Carol Parr,CDOT Wendy Wallach,C&B Larry Rogstad,CDOW Jim Eussen, CDOT Diane Yates,C&B Ron Beane, ERO Rebecca Pierce,CDOT Dave Beckhouse,FTA Long Nguyen,CDOT 1of1 Page E-18 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting MEETING DATE: April 10, 2007 LOCATION: Wetland locations along North I-25 Interchange ATTENDEES: C&B: Bill Knapp, Wendy Wallach, Gina McAfee, Diane Yates ERO: Steve Butler, Ron Beane EPA: Sarah Fowler COE: Margaret Langworthy FHU: Kendra Gabbert, Jeanne S harps, Tom Anzia CDOT:Jim Eussen, Carol Parr CDOW: Chad M organ, Larry Rogstad, Mark Leslie PREPARERS: Diane Yates, Wendy Wallach ATTACHMENTS: Meeting handout(9 sheets) • COPIES: Attendees, Bob Garcia, Steve Olson, Rebecca Pierce, Dave Martinez, Long Nguyen,Alison Michaels, Dave Beckhouse, Danielle Smith, Gayl Harrison, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY Purpose of Field Meeting • To review wetland delineation at 1-25 and major river crossings • To review current designs for the two build alternatives (Package A& B), avoidance and minimization measures, and potential impacts. • To receive comments from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives were unable to attend. Field Meeting Agenda Meeting participants met at the 1-25 / US 119 park-n-ride to board a large van for the project tour. All agency representatives (CDOT, COE, EPA and CDOW)were able to ride in the van with most of the natural resource specialists, highway engineers and environmental planners from the North 1-25 team, allowing project discussions while traveling between each tour stop. • Federal Highway Administration /Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-19 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES umoerd'iori I.areporatilm Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 2 of 7 A handout was distributed, containing a summary of the project's wetland resources and mapping methods, descriptions of the DEIS design alternatives, estimated impacts, and design strategies used to avoid impacts. Large plots of the design plans for each tour site were shown to the group to describe the proposed highway or rail improvement. Diane Yates (DEIS team) began the tour by explaining that the four stops were selected for their water quality and wetland perspectives, and to view the major river crossings effected by the 1-25 and commuter rail alternatives currently under evaluation by the DEIS: No Action, Package A and Package B. The four stops were also selected because they represent the areas of greatest potential impact. COE asked about the estimated wetland impact areas for the project. Diane Yates replied that the existing wetland area for Package A is 633 acres with 32 acres of wetland impact. Package B has 233 acres of existing wetlands with 21 acres of wetland impact. Most impacts to important wetlands are at river crossings. The COE's reaction to the large area of impact by both packages is that we should work harder to try to • minimize these. Methods to avoid wetland impact should be explored further. STOP#1: COMMUTER RAIL ALONG SH 119 at ST VRAIN RIVER CROSSING Proposed Improvements: Commuter rail tracks would be built south and parallel to SH 119, crossing the St. Vrain River bridge. CDOT will be replacing the eastbound bridge within the next year. Wetland and other site conditions: Scrub shrub wetlands and riparian areas are located on both banks of the river. Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts: Rail tracks designed for the south side of SH 119 will avoid the larger wetlands and 4(f) properties on the north side of SH 119. Wetlands associated with the St. Vrain Creek corridor are located throughout the area; much design effort was made to locate the rail corridor where it would have the least impact to wetlands. Agency Comments and Mitigation Options: • A recreation trail is planned along the St. Vrain River. • A pedestrian crossing is proposed for SH 119. • Ron Beane said the entire riparian area along the St. Vrain Creek is a winter roosting area for bald eagle, on both sides of 119. There is a communal roosting area located south of 119 on Boulder Creek. If the rail alignment is on the south side of 119, it would be closer to this communal roosting area, but still more than '/z mile away. • Page E-20 NORTH I25 EIS MEETING MINUTES inl'um40an >pnnation Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 3 of 7 • There is a bald eagle mitigation area at the Boulder Estates gravel pit mining reclamation area, near Boulder Creek. The gravel mine is putting up two posts at this site to mitigate for the impacted trees that are used for perching. • There is also an active nest site near the confluence of Boulder Creek and Idaho Ditch a little more than 1 mile south of the 119 bridge. • The city of Longmont Parks and Recreation also has a mitigation area nearby. • The St. Vrain serves as a wildlife crossing of SH 119. The agencies asked if new bridges for SH 119 and commuter rail can incorporate a wildlife crossing. COE asked if this was a significant wildlife migration location, because the wildlife crossing could count as mitigation for the North 1-25 project by improving the value of wildlife habitat for the existing wetlands and river corridor. COE referenced SH 285 as an example of a wildlife crossing. • CDOT answered that only the eastbound bridge will be replaced, and CDOT will try to incorporate a wildlife crossing in the highway project. Team engineers said the crossing would be under the SH 119 bridge spans and would require • widening and raising the spans to allow deer to cross. CDOW said 10-feet would provide sufficient height of the crossing. Engineers said it's possible for 7 to 8-foot height to be made without changing the superstructure, using soil nail walls and providing bank stabilization. Carol Parr to send updated animal- vehicle collision data to Ron Beane. STOP#2:1-25 CROSSING at ST VRAIN RIVER Proposed Improvements: Package B proposes widening 1-25 toward the center median. Package A does not include improvements along this section of 1-25. No change to the Frontage Road or bridge. During summer 2007, the 1-25 bridges will be reconstructed. Wetland and other site conditions: Scrub shrub wetlands and riparian vegetation line the banks of the St. Vrain River. Agency Comments, Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts, and Mitigation Options: • COE asked about fill impacts. There will be no impacts from fill, everything is on structure or impacts will be temporary. • COE asked about the difference between Package A and B. At this location, Package A assumes the capacity will be okay with the current widening project; no improvements are proposed for 1-25 between SH 52 and SH 66. Package B will add 1 tolled express lane in each direction. • We talked about the current Region 4 project and wetland impacts associated with this. Region 4 will be requesting a nationwide Sec 404 permit for this project. Terry McKee determined jurisdictional wetlands to be less than 1/10 of • Page E-21 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES co.veralir+n ; H,, t)rid3.u;n Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 4of7 an acre. This project has complete independent utility from the North 1-25 EIS project. R4 Environmental personnel met with CDOW personnel approximately one year ago to discuss the drop structure east of the frontage road bridge. Division personnel were concerned about the structure being a barrier to fish passage. Any changes to the drop structure WILL NOT be included in the current construction on 125, but will be part of the DEIS design. COE said this change is an enhancement, increasing aquatic habitat function; so take credit for this improvement. • Diane Yates asked if there are opportunities to provide mitigation at St. Vrain State Park. Agency representatives said there are opportunities at the State Park but there are problems because the wetlands are isolated. The COE would be reluctant to accept mitigation if the wetland mitigation is not in-kind or under the jurisdiction of the State Park. If the wetlands mitigation is connected or adjacent to impacted wetlands, they may be available for enhancement by creating canopy layers. • CDOT would like to create buffers to the State Park that also support St. Vrain River. •• COE said ratios for preservation area 10:1. To provide more mitigation credit, the project would need enhancement with native vegetation and other efforts to improve the existing wetlands. Enhancement credit ratios are 4:1. • COE asked if the bridge span will be made longer at this location because she noticed the passage under the bridge is narrow. This project widens the proposed reconstructed bridges toward the median and does not increase the existing span length. • COE asked if deer are in the area. CDOT would lengthen the bridge span for wildlife. Ron Beane said increasing the span would help but this area is not an important wildlife area. At this point, a longer span would not reap benefits for large game but would benefit small animals. WATER QUALITY PONDS 1-25(not on tour, general project question) Proposed Improvements: Water quality ponds are designed for low collection areas along the 1-25 highway alignment. Some ponds are designed for the river floodplains. Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts: Ponds would be located outside of wetland boundaries. Agency Comments: Diane Yates asked if existing wetlands can receive water from water quality ponds. COE and EPA said yes, as long as the water discharged to the wetland is pre-treated. A • Page E-22 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES .0:, eoupi;tatm uaw�;�nuuian Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 5of7 fore-bay must be integrated with the water quality pond and both should not be in the park/4(f) property. 1-25 CROSSING at LITTLE THOMPSON RIVER(not a stop on the tour, but discussed from review of design plans) Proposed Improvements: Highway would be moved to the west and widened. Frontage Road would not change. Safety median is 80-feet wide. Interchange with SH 392 was pulled in to avoid wetlands. Wetland conditions: Scrub shrub wetlands line banks of the Little Thompson River. Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts: Water quality ponds moved outside of wetlands. Agency Comments and Mitigation Options: • COE asked if anything can be done to enhance the buffer to Little Thompson • River wetlands STOP#3: 1-25 CROSSING at BIG THOMPSON RIVER Proposed Improvements: For Package A and B, 1-25 was widened east and west, maintaining the rural median width of 80 feet. Proposed US 24 exit/entrance ramps extend south of the Big Thompson River crossing, making the width of the highway more than twice the existing 1-25 width. The Frontage Road would be placed adjacent to 1-25 with a barrier separation in lieu of the normal 40-foot ditch section. Wetland and other site conditions: Wetlands line the river bank; extend across the floodplain and along 1-25 roadside ditch. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area (BTP SWA) is adjacent to river and 1-25 to the west. This area is Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. Methods to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Impacts: Jeanne Sharps said retaining walls were added to the west and east sides of 1-25, ramp alignment was modified, and river crossing designed with bridges instead of culverts, to avoid wetland and 4(f) property Agency Comments and Mitigation Options: • CDOW does not want the highway to expand west into the State Wildlife Area or west into the riparian area along the Big Thompson, adjacent to the roadway. The cottonwood riparian area provides nice riparian habitat, COE agrees. • Engineers said 1-25 improvements follow design standards by maintaining the rural design standards (80-foot center median) and widening to the outside. • Page E-23 NORTH I-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES ,;:;,I;urtauon Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 6 of 7 COE said the project design must document that the least environmentally impact alternative was selected and impacts to wetlands were avoided and minimized. EPA suggested considering a design exception to the rural design standard to avoid impacts. • COE likes the idea of mitigating at the reclaimed gravel mine sites near Big Thompson if the CDOW is purchasing the reclaimed mine property. • COE asked CDOW about mitigation options at Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area (BTP SWA). CDOW said a large gravel pit mine operation (Flying W Gravel Pit) is planned for property next to the BTP SWA and west of I-25, to be mined by Jake Kauffman and Sons, Inc. After mining is complete, the property owners would like to reclaim this site and add it to the BTP SWA. CDOW said this addition would add wildlife habitat value to the BTP SWA. The gravel operation is planned for a 10-20 year operation. A permit has been issued to State Mineral and Geology Department, but a Sec 404 permit has not been requested, perhaps because there are no jurisdictional wetlands on site and no federal nexus. CDOT said currently the North 1-25 project does not have • funding and may not be complete for 20-30 years; therefore wetland mitigation at the gravel pit may be feasible. COE would get involved if mitigation for North 1-25 impacts is considered at this site. This would provide a federal nexus for COE to help monitor site activities. • We need to locate the WQ pond here so it is not right in the middle of Preble's habitat. STOP#4: 1-25 CROSSING at CACHE LE POUDRE RIVER Proposed Improvements: Highway improvements shifted the alignment east of existing highway centerline. The channel of Cache Le Poudre does not hold a 10-year flood flow. If the project improves the 1-25 bridges for more flood flow capacity, land uses along the river downstream of the bridge would be at risk of flooding. This highway improvement meets the rural design criteria. Wetland and other site conditions: Wetlands line the riverbanks and extend along the floodplain on east side of 1-25. City of Fort Collins owns property immediately west of 1- 25, its potential 4(f) property. Abandoned CDOT rest areas are north of the river crossing. Agency Comments and Mitigation Options: • CDOW suggested these potential wetland mitigation sites: o Landowner near Timnath o Larimer County open space o North of SH 392 in Bluff area • Page E-24 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES cun;:e'airm nan:por.ati II Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting April 10, 2007 7 of 7 o Arapahoe Bend Natural Area • COE suggested wetland restoration in Ft. Collins 4(f) recreation property southwest of Poudre River/ I-25 crossing. ACTION ITEMS • FHU to explore and document design variations at the St. Vrain and the Big Thompson rivers with the intent to minimize impacts to wetlands and Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. (Riparian habitat). This information will be included in the DEIS. ▪ Carol Parr to send updated animal-vehicle collision data to Ron Beane. JLTransporlaftw107I600 4001warbnotYrdosiTask5 xenon el impact S milyeliar PkgA&8110 lip 07wog Sec 404 hid mlgNlp Mrrules_041WT5alan 404 Fagot.e Agoncwa Row Meeting 04f00)FINAL 0x • • Page E-25 I C U _ 1 _ _ - __.. o — J In Ln ± U ,3 , 9 f 3 • H ��,i W 0 1 v 7 1/4" _ `'� x g t 6 s 3 0 a 10 , ! -t:ro Z y kr a d • el e- ..s4 ‘-‘) , Z � N •y " C' • I--- : W Z • 0 i • 02 le \. 1 .4a o 1 LJ ti v v i -t tl I - ; s- Sa. W ! a a, .�J, a E ti N iv \ 'V ,,t, v. 8 s v r ;gc,-) • Page E-26 NORTH I--25 EIS „himlIon i00LHfliilC'1. iral'yttOf tflilUn. MEMORANDUM To: Margaret Langworthy, COE; Sarah Fowler, EPA; Jim Eussen, CDOT; Carol Parr, CDOT; Larry Rogstad, CDOW; Chad Morgan, CDOW; Mark Leslie, CDOW; Tom Anzia, FHU; Kendra Gabbert, FHU; Jeanne Sharps, FHU; Steve Butler, ERO; Ron Beane, ERO cc: File From: Jeanne Sharps, P.E., Tom Anzia, P.E., Wendy Wallach, & Carol Parr Date: July 27, 2007 Subject: Responses to Comments Raised During the April 10, 2007 Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting Regarding Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation of Wetland Areas Potentially Impacted by the North 1-25 project Introduction • This memorandum is in response to concerns raised by the U.S.Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), Colorado Department of Wildlife(CDOW) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)regarding avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of wetland areas potentially impacted by the North I-25 project. These concerns were raised during the April 10, 2007 Section 404 resource agencies field meeting (see minutes attached). The agencies expressed three primary areas of concern on the field trip,where minimization and mitigation was of special interest to them.These are discussed below: Cache la Poudre River.Wetlands line the riverbank and extend along the floodplain o n the east side of 1-25. The agencies asked that consideration be given to m inimize impacts to the adjacent river banks associated with the widening of the bridge. The agencies asked that the design team explore a design exception at this location in order to narrow the median and lessen the impacts. Big Thompson River. This wetland area provides an important riparian area with mature cottonwood trees for wildlife habitat. The adjacent Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area is located west of 1-25. These areas are considered Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. The agencies asked that every effort be taken to mi nimize impacts to the adjacent river banks associated with the widening of the bridge. The agencies asked that the design team explore a design exception at this location in order to narrow the median and lessen the impacts. St Vrain River. Wetlands are abundant adjacent to SH 119. The agencies asked if CDOT could increase the vertical clearance at the two bridges (eastbound and westbound)to provide greater height for larger mammals to use as a crossing. • Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-27 July 27,2007 • Res ponses seses t to Comments Raised During the April 10,2007 Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting Page 2 The following is a summary of the wetland impact minimization measures already incorporated in the existing DEIS design at these areas: Big Thompson River • Retaining walls were placed on the east and west edges of roadway to contain the highway fill and minimize impacts to the wetlands. Wal Is extend 100 feet north and south of th e wetland areas on both sides of 1-25. • The design standard 40-foot wide ditch between 1-25 and the east fronta ge road was eliminated near the river crossing to mi nimize impacts to the wetlands.A barrier separation between the roadways was utilized in lieu of the ditch, • Water quality ponds were placed out side the limits of the wetland areas near the river. Cache la Poudre River • Retaining walls were placed on the east edge of roadway to contain the highway fill and minimize impacts to the wetlands. Walls extend 100 feet north and south of the wetland areas. • Water quality ponds were placed out side the limits of the wetland areas near the river. St. Vrain River • • The commuter rail tracks are proposed to run along the south side of SH 119 to avoid impacts to larger wetlands on the north side. In addition to these aforementioned minimization measures, at the request of the agencies the team explored additional opportunities for minimization and mitigation. Additional Minimization of Wetland Impacts—Median Alternative Standard rural design allows an 80-foot median for freeways, with a cable median guardrail. A design exception could be made to eliminate the 80-foot median half a mile north and south of the river crossings, and replacing the tensioned cable barrier with a concrete guardrail in the closed median areas. For the Big Thompson River, the reduction in median width would minimize wetland impact by approximately 1.35 acres. Original impacts under Package A were estimated at 6.17 acres and under Package B were estimated at 4.76 acres. There would be m inimal changes to construction and right-of-way costs. The proposed design alternative at the Big Thompson River introduces a horizontal shift in the roadway alignm ent, which may be a concern in terms of driver expectancy. West of 1-25 the edge of roadway will shift reducing impacts to the State Wildlife Area. Both the alternative design and the original design implement guardrails that differ from mainline options, and both cases include transitions in the design. Thus, there is no appreciable difference in safety conditions for the two alternatives. Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation • Page E-28 • July 27,2007 Responses to Comments Raised During the April 10, 2007 Section 404 Resource Agencies Field Meeting Page 3 For the Cache la Poudre River, the reduction in median width would minimize wetland impact by about 0.5 acre. Original im pacts under Package A were estimated at 5.59 acres and under Package B were estimated at 2.14 acres. There would be minimal changes to construction costs, and approximately 15,000 square feet less of right-of-way acquisition. Mitigation for Wildlife—St. Vrain Crossing For the SH 119 crossing at St. V rain River, the CO E requested that on the west side of the eastbound bridge CDOT should try to move or position the pier to allow for additional elevation for wildlife movement. The eastbound bridge is currently under design for replacement by CDOT. The existing elevation will be retained as the new eastbound bridge is designed. Additionally, riprap will be buried and covered with exi sting substrate to provide a natural surface for wildlife and backwaters will be left in place per CDOW reque st. Conclusion With regard to the Big Thompson and Cache la Poudre crossings, the DOS environmental analysis will continue to reflect the impacts of the standard median in the original design, since the median design is consistent with both build packages. The DEIS will include this possible option to narrow the median as a mitigation measure to be explored in m ore detail during the FEIS process. During FEIS design, consideration will be given to incorporating a closed median • section at river crossings into the preferred alternative design if other mitigation measures do not adequately minimize impacts. During the design process, potential safety concerns wil I be thoroughly addressed. For the St. Vrain crossing proposed within the N orth 1-25 DEIS, CDOT will commit to continued collaboration with the CDOW and COE on other concerns in this geographic area.This could include effects to backwaters by any future design changes and opportunities to minimize impacts to wildlife when and if the local agency constructs a bike path under SH 119 at the S t. Vrain bridge. 3\.Tansportation\D71609.100\manage\con'\Memo\memo we0antl072707.doc • Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-29 I 9 G t • North I-25 Front Range EIS Regional Coordination Committee Meeting January 28,2004 Page 2 MEETING MINUTES MEETING TYPE: Regional Coordination Committee Meeting MEETING DATE: January 28,2004 at 2:00 PM ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION: ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION: Paul Carter City of Erie Don Marostian City of Loveland Mary Gavin City of Dacono Bill Swenson Trans. Comm. John Taylor Town of Gilchrest John Bramble City of Brighton Jean Wallace FHWA Steve Shafer Town of Platteville Rosalie Everson Ft. Lupton Press Alton Dillard Sen.Campbell's Office Dick Leffler Town of Frederick Keith Meyer/Glen Vaad Weld County Joe Racine Timnath Jan Pawlouski City of Brighton John Dow FTA S. David Norcross City of Ft. Lupton Larry Walsh City of Loveland Tim Holeman Broomfield Marti Morgan Sen. Allard's Office Cliff Davidson NFR MPO Roger Longe Longmont Cty Gov Carl Harvey LaSalle Jenny Foote Town of Berthoud Glenn Gibson Larimer County • ( Cheri Anderson City of Firestone Don Feldhaus City of Greeley Gene Putman City of Thornton Gina McAfee Carter-Burgess Holly Miller FHU Tom Anzia FHU Bob Felsburg FHU Kim Podobnik Praco Matt Witten Praco Karla Harding CDOT Bob Garcia CDOT Dave Martinez CDOT PREPARER: Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Holly Miller Presenter: Karla Harding 1. Introduction • An EA conducted in the early 90s (SH 7 to SH 66)recommended adding capacity to the I-25 corridor • The Transportation Alternatives Study was a 7th Pot study that was similar to a Major Investment Study. The EIS is the next step in the process. • An EIS looks at many alternatives to see what alternative makes the most sense. It will be a decision made by FTA and FHWA as lead agency. • CDOT is the lead agency on this EIS study 2. RCC • The RCC is an opportunity to get input from the local communities and will act as an advisory group. The RCC will also be a conduit to the public. • Project milestones will dictate when meetings are held • 1:I03225\RCC\Meeting Minutes\RCC012804.doc Page E-30 • ai� alte : li r} ,*iby North I-25 Front Range EIS Regional Coordination Committee Meeting • January 28,2004 Page 3 • RCC is encouraged to provide input at any time Presenter: Tom Anzio 3. Project team • Felsburg Holt&Ullevig • Carter—Burgess • PRACO ▪ Specialty Consultants 4. Study Area • While a study area is defined, the area of consideration for the EIS will extend beyond this study area 5. EIS Process • The EIS is a three year process to fully consider the larger area and many alternatives 6. History of Regional Transportation Studies • The study will build upon other studies that have been conducted in the area- TAFS will be key 7. Other Ongoing corridor Studies • This study will be coordinated with other ongoing corridor studies in the project • vicinity Presenter: Gina McAfee 8. National Environmental Policy Act • NEPA governs federal agencies actions • NEPA lays out process to follow o Systematic interdisciplinary approach o Fatly and open process o Study and develop alternatives 9. Environmental Considerations • Need to look at the impact of an alternative on the people,lane use,noise, archaeological, air quality, etc. 10.Economic Impacts • Energy 11. Environmental Impacts • These include studying air quality, wetlands, orchid, floodplain, etc. 12. Purpose of Scoping • Getting input from public on the need for transportation improvements,potential alternatives, environmental concerns Presenter: Kim Podobnik 13.Information Sharing ▪ This includes the methods we are using to disseminate information to the public. It includes newsletters, ads,mailings,web site, etc. • 1:'D3225NRCC\Meeting Minutes\RCC0 I 2804.doc Page E-31 •Th. • North 1-25 Front Range EIS Regional Coordination Committee Meeting January 28,2004 Page 4 • Wyoming public radio picked up the news story illustrating that this project has an influence beyond Northern Colorado. • Group was asked to give recommendations on other ways to disseminate information. 14. Information Gathering • The team will gather input from the public through public open houses, small group meetings,project committees and special events. The public is welcome and encouraged to give comment at any time through the process. 15. Targeted Outreach • Special attention will be given to groups historically overlooked in this process— minority populations, low-income populations and seniors. ▪ Outreach efforts will includes providing translators, information drops, small group presentations and cultural events. Presenter: Group 16.RCC Input and Discussion • Is the study area truly from I-70 to the Wyoming boarder?—It goes south to Denver Union Station to accommodate possible rail transit and west to Boulder. It stops short of the Wyoming border. • Would like to see public meetings held on south end of study area. The locations • seem to focus on the north end. • There have been five studies already done. This work needs to incorporate previous work efforts. • Coordination with RTD and the North Metro efforts is needed—RTD is a coordinating agency. RTD boundary today ends at SH 7. Meetings are now taking place. • Why will this EIS take three years?Today,Greeley residents avoid I-25. Creating distinct milestones would help with the long three-year time frame anticipated. • The study should consider the use of tolling—Tolling will be considered relative to revenue. • • Attention to interchanges along the corridor. ▪ Report Executive Oversight Committee work efforts to the RCC. • Would like the team to get input from motorcycle groups. • Congestion is the biggest problem and safety is secondary. ▪ Congestion and safety are high on the list of needed improvements. • Implementing the access control plan along Highway 85 would help to improve operation along 1-25. We need to find funding for the grade separations and interchanges. • Study should look at funding options to implement improvements.—Funding may not be available in the near term but the plan will be ready when funding is available. • Don't want this study to stall other early-action items being considered along I-25 • J:103225\RCOMeeting Minutes\RCC0 12804.doc Page E-32 • ,.- C •* $<.: c'1�9 ::�pp'. Ira 'rt ti„ y",,at Sato• - 1,0„i GE E.: .�F h ? $+aFir. .1tr r� A Z<S.".i�*.s•F}51'a{" , y ','�1N ..3rclti:ti�2_Y.�'�.4.`iiv.2t'7 North I-25 Front Range EIS Regional Coordination Committee Meeting January 28,2004 Page 5 • Land use is the most important issue. Big growth in residential and employment in Northern Colorado. • Can we quantify use of TAFS —how much to we save on this EIS study because TAFS was already completed? • Provide info on TAFS in newsletter. • RTD is expected to purchase Union Pacific right of way up to Brighton as part of the FasTracks proposal. • Avoid the public feeling that this effort is duplicating previous efforts. • The RCC group preferred day meetings to evening meetings. • In the future,we should provide RCC members with additional scoping handouts for the communities. • The RCC group will meet roughly quarterly. We will send out a list of topics to be covered and the expected time frame. • Send RCC group list out to all RCC members. • • • 1a0322SRCC\Meeting Minutes\RCC012804.doc Page E-33 i W tx & • N e C� J z �` 0 4 z ° a 86 v ): " o 4 V c� a. M 0' Q r,l v al, • fi i J o -e 7 O n r c'll1 ti r, 05. CVO.,. `) r ° © 'C)rr P m tr iS a` (- M w044 4 L cA ) i 4 Y N.' u : J \ - N )— im I 3 P; 1 > S 1 . li 3 ' .... - • o.3 zi�? %. c� ') A i':; .i J i•a .`3ry S L ? r : IP 16-1li .aT . O 0 g IN . ,4 _ , , .,. , .., , • ., _ „.,. ,.... . „ _.... ___ ' Page E-34 i , N .+ u- o Ll• W . .„ w , (3 i, ig Zi r ( � � y Q v .,0 Et ' .g N o ' n • ,� j_ • :. ... $ z J s t �7' "b M N._All f‘') ‘X, '? (C)°(,r1 -,. 4i v ,y aQ,zi r‘,1 O.A. rn M ,re. N f:‘1 'tis r v-, t ti iz,v \''•rJ a f f0 W9 ,c, .... IN A „:„.., 0 . tI) 1) rzjs, ...lc_ n t-- 1 A •-t- lt) \\ .- , '\ . i i ,e 4i $ ,-,")u4,I i.; p _, ,. 4 i _ i 4."1 �, J Q ~ •il °woo Jll 4 _;.,7.." ...1) 4 �e w Page E-35 1' I !1 ufij -� N , c L P 0 ) ,& , 4 l• i cr ! dd tu,.._ ,... ,_ , .„ , , 2 1/4.1 I" ci.t.... LL 1 u N ^^11 4 O O — S ' .32^' Q A. 7 S\ a \i-- 47 ! c i U F-� 1 0 i 1 `J Q r w0 11 • 4tti 4 I a t 4.�1 \1 - V al d x : 1;' /\3 !,Q f�]i VI '` AO r. • ti y eV _'-R. 3 -app a cam. i— t' l .., r4 N rt ` . 14 , T • cez, � Page E-36 NORTH 1-25 1, - EIS r?,. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: June 9,2004 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1)Purpose and Need Review • RCC suggested reordering the Needs in Purpose and Need to 1)Safety,2)Capacity,3)Aging • infrastructure,4)Model Alternatives and 5)Economic Growth. The group agreed to reorder the needs and also suggested that the Newsletter be reprinted to reflect this change. 3000 newsletters are already in the mail already. The Needs will be reorder for the next print. • An RCC member pointed out that under the Economic Demands;existing growth is causing a need as well as future growth. • The group requested that more information be provided for the Needs. Specifically,the aging infrastructure need should identify exactly which interchanges are deficient today. • There are existing deficiencies in the system. The group asked if we add more interchanges would it mean that existing infrastructure would suffer and not be upgraded. • It was requested that the Economic Growth Need not specifically identify one particular interchange because a number of communities have deficient interchanges or access. • The second need statement will be rewritten to reflect that growth is occurring with out a coordinated plan. • The numbered paragraphs in the Purpose and Need document will be changed to bullets to avoid indicating that they are prioritized in any way. • The group would like to see an outline of chapters of an EIS document. • We will hold a meeting toward the end of July to update the group on input received from the public and next steps. 2)Goals • A member pointed out that while providing modal choices for transit dependents is important. The study should provide modal choices to everyone and work to enhance the ability for transit dependents to use the service. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:1032251RCCVIEETING MINUTESi06-09-0MRCC-060904.doc Page E-37 • NORTH I--25 w '. EIS _ MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee June 9,2004 Page 2 of 6 • It was suggested that the goa Is be reordered and that those that sound like Needs from the Purpose and Need statement should be removed. They should be kept simple. • It was suggested that the last three goals listed identify just about everything. • The team will review this input with the TAC and work toward updating the goals for the next meeting, 31 Alternatives Screening Process • A member asked if PRT was included in the alternatives screening. It has not been included at this time. It was felt that it was not appropriate for this length corridor. It has slow speeds and travels shorter distances. • A member asked how weather would impact the different alternatives. With snow and ice,a rubber- tired vehicle may have more difficulty meeting schedule and a steel wheel steel track can't exceed 5% with ice and snow. 4)Publ/c Involvement Update • Kim P.gave an update on Public Involvement Attachments • Ema/led to you on June 2, 2004: • Agenda • Draft Purpose and Need—5/28/04 • Project Goals—4/8/04 • Alternatives Development and Screening Process—5/21/04 • Draft Evaluation Criteria Matrix-5/24/04 • Level One Alternatives Screening—5/28/04 • RCC Membership Directory-6/9/04 Handed out at the Meeting • Sample of"Contact Us"magnet • • "Imagine the Possibilities" handout Act/on Items: ▪ Send Mary from City of Dacono the RCC Meeting Packet Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J.•1032251 RCC I MEETING MINUTES06.09-04 LR CC-060904.do c Page E-38 0 , -:,,,..:is_:.:, 0 va Cn r F...I 1 0.3 �-1 a I�+ a Q x z o .- O O fi d r 0 R. a. A 00 co v % o U • o 14.4 '‘:3- o 1Z O C M MI L et `] Z''. Z- 0 0 a) O c.) c:) c c oo >- c r.:. c o co 4- -O o c°J., o c o _ v o 0• ) a`� o a • ,°,° E O o ii u ci �L 03 - U o cC o o t i o 0 0 0 O 0 a �( Q m c) C C 0 V U .. U ° c� U U U U U 4- U U $ b k C b bo C C C C C C N 03 h 0.1 W Q) a) O3 03 $ Q � l va w U 01. C • N y i N t c0 co` co a) C o e- G '' a7 vn c a Qi .c` L E Z 0 t7 0 m 0 o 0 s ` s 0 o w � c cr) ›- m o cn 1 `m c.D m c f-- o (0 cn u, . N 0 N C Cam.) •a N4 C N ? ¢ LJ.. U co 6- cia- CJ cm cc r4 U z 4= -7 s 7 Page E-39 4 • Cp n 4 4,, W " C7 3 QJ a z R O h 'c d 6 q q v b Q o 0 I J O CD y C O O C O V H S > u O Q U Q d N tst L•U 'a El .V C L. -J v- Z v~- T O cc cc —CO cu m O L. CO O y O O 4--- O U.. I E Q h p C 'O '~ o a O Q C v v a, J z -0 c o U F C QCO 4 a a 0 U a c e c "oo % O W y. $ CI E - J _ _ k O U C a L Elt a • ' j CO cD CU C O O f4 y Zr) L- h is t aT E j: j o CO r 4� c a) CO n p U ! -co �j N (0 C c coo o m ¢Li co e o r L o U •p Y CD Z C9 U CO Q Cl- •- N � ZCO -7 o l Page E-40 .,-.�M1^e, c f i{{.+fir ez • d {i.'. C , W $ CO ( + 8a E 0 O E Q 45 a EI E fi 0 a r 0 g. E. L. a e E 4 ro c_.) sQ co I o • w k itz Z as a)C U ~ L '5 a) to C U Ctl c� ._ 5 a) C -4 Q 0) Q. a O '3- co C co 7 7 E C 0 O cc coo .- U J J cp —1_ _ o 0 o a o a o -a o a �+ ?y C15 Li C G o C C N O a O 0 O 4 e i- - r F- I v co v C) 1 U C 4 o O C 1111111 H co 93 Cb 03 lb tb 'al tb I a� E o U c coco a) ) y 4- i ca a) ,N co 7 c0 O s1 E " Q) -0N v H v co 4- c c o 'ry G co CU = o _CI = Y w ZZI o w o c c� = u_ v7 a) x �i CD z. c W U O d a) y U • y N Td U N (d 'x a) L V E .y f0 4) C C G •W V c o Q) can -� 2 E_ Cl E ry ot 'ac CO a ) ,n O 0 m = o U2 GC --) ,'-i Page E-41 r.r' % T 00 yr c N.:0_. 4si w $ •cii � s m 3 H Q a 0 a Q el z cwIt 0 cc 0 a ts a. _ E Z ti Q r Q s 0 0 13 •Q .Fr. C 4 o 4 E E Q c 0 v•� Q .170 c_) o a .� u CZ .SC O173 a c t o m Y d o Q .�as o c C O C C • N JR N C� ow oo cp N 0-3 \5i .a cv V O 0 C!J • C -L - N O O _ U CC CV al I-- ..C 0 m CD % 0 0 OJ C n C3 Z CC ' o _ S Page E-42 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: August 26, 2004 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1) June Meeting Minutes • No comments on the June meeting minutes. • 2) Project Schedule • Committee Schedule o Overall schedule on target with orig inal schedule. RCC meeting dates have been updated. Please check the schedule included in the RC C packet for the latest dates. 3) Level 2 Follow-up • Review of Open House attendance and follow-up on Heavy Rail comments. Carter Burgess developing more information that supports dropping Heavy Rail. • An RCC member asked if people ask about funding opportun ities. They do and the EIS will include a section about funding. • It was pointed out that this is a requ ired step to get federal funding in the future. We must finish the EIS process to qualify for funds. • Definition of alternatives becomes more detailed, more specific in Level 2. Even more detail in Level 3. Level 1 was very general. • Craig G. gave a brief review of the different rail technologie s. 4) Purpose and Need Update • 6 new vanpool routes have been ad ded by Vango. Now there are 36 vans. • Budweiser had an RFP out to move freight. Could use I-25 or rail. Freight movement is an important component. • How do we preserve ROW? Stan E.gave an example of what is occurring from SH 7 to SH 66. This EA process identified a typical section and an envelope for ROW preservation. CDOT is experiencing pressure from communities to develop along the corridor. The results of this EIS effort could have a wide range of ROW needs. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCCIMEEI7NG MINUTES108-26-041RCC-082604 doc Page E-43 NORTH 125 • EIS `` s,_ MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee August 26, 2004 Page 2 of 8 • The group had discussion about the communities' efforts thus far to preserve ROW along 1-25. • People turning off 1-25 to the Frontage Roads are a safety issue. Would like to see it addressed in the P urpose and Need statem ent. People use these accesses to get around accidents. • Reevaluation of EA from 7 to 66 for WCR 9 % affects tying in to SH 66 east of k25. 5) Travel Model Update • No Action Network Definition o Chris P. gave an update on the tra vel modeling efforts. o SH 56 should be changed to SH 52 in the No Action Network Definition o An RCC member asked that we check on the status of funding for WCR 13/Colorado Boulevard improvements. o Are we constrained by alternatives that are NOT on Interstate if our analysis shows they help 1-25 i.e. WCR 13? o Important that Boulder/Longmont commuter rail in FasTracks be included and / coordinated with this project. As it stands now, it will be included in the No • Action Alternative if FasTracks passes. 6) Level 2 Alternatives Development and Screening Process • Complementary vs. stand alone alternatives • Develop stand alone alternatives • Level 2 alternatives will be presented to the public in October • Continue evaluation through January and present draft results to public in February. • Revisit naming for stand alone and complementary alternatives. Don't want packaging to be precluded by the naming convention. • Will the study discuss methods of financing as part of the practicability criteria? Yes, this will be discussed in more detail as the process continues. 7) Public Involvement Update • October meetings planned for 19th, 21st, 26th and 28th. The locations are currently being determined. This round's format will be a structured presentation round table format. 8) General Discussion • RCC is invited to the next TAC meeting where Peggy Catlin w ill be giving a presentation on the Statewide Tolling Study. She will give some background on the CTE and the preliminary results of the study. • Preliminary results indicate that 1-25 is one of the best corridors for potential tolling. • A recent newspaper article claimed that tolls aren't popular. Be cautioned that other studies indicate that people view it positively. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J.L 1032251RCCIMEETING MINUTES108-26-04RCC-082604.doc Page E-44 Noun 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee August 26,2004 Page 3 of 8 • The November TAC is scheduled for Veteran's Day(Nov. 11th). Please change date. Action Items: • Team will check with Weld County to determine if WCR 13 improvement are funded • Add text about frontage road safety concerns to the Purpose and Need document. • Change the date for the November TAC meeting. • Revisit naming for stand alone and complementary alternatives. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032231RCCIMEET1NC MINUTES O8-26-O4RCC-082604 doc Page E-45 >I • f/3 7 O 7 N O O• O D Q > Y O OI O O O 0 C• f6 E Uj N U O 0 N- O C O Srr o CO a N l6 U U 0 N > E `; ,� i N N = t C OC y C O. N O 0 NNi .r o N 7 N C N E E U jTvf 't c @ o J@ o °?T. "' C' s 0 E v @ i � 9 In rvr -6 C co co n E a o N > @ O E m ca m ❑ g W a� E a h-4 W Q o o O II 2 -.2 a "O V U W it L :n U H a (.) 0 OC R P....4 4 O Z l' F 0 P3 ry _4d . w t., q d I ( Cn UID 0 O A it w > Q S c o a m 42 B rn j W d C 0 151/4 al IL = - 2 0 m ,W o g o 5 o o F- 0 O 3 o o R _. m E c Q UZ. a m 0 U H Z c la U a , .0 e "I a mb "' C w w w w u a a,, c y 0) °ci aCi d °p % I-. g Q a a a s a` w s W 2 co C '— N C CO `' N co N L 7 L E N f6 w F 7 ��Cgg1 Z N i� S m V (3 2 m 10 O ❑ E > y S 11 II N co = N O C LL o,a Z 15 c42 U F = 5 g o Y CL g U a o o s tq ¢ ❑ C ❑ tv Page E-46 • N 0 No 7E E 7 7 O E N 0 U V U co U O C U E y a o E m a; oo áo ai _ c as t.. o a E m 4E�, o o N o •E `' 0 ca s0 t o cLi E n a @ EE 64 3 'c o d o m o k 3 Q a C N �' l:+ O �p N U N L ,�� l Q) U lv rE .„1{� o y m E o a @c E m 0 as g 43 D. @ N f--+ a ED E o f o 'E E Q CO Z o c E c �+ W $ o Q ai m C E m 'm i- t - m a �i E v ^ c o a ° o a v $ o H t g d O c O `fi m g v �' O la I ID o a U • o a k o fi 4 `C n N m fi 3 °C 2 =O Et.- 0 G E F 2' o f o c r '� . .4- 1= O = 8 coo a J CD U o m I.L.Zit C o "c3 °a 2° `y a �O 'b Cf) N V'-. O [i, Q O 3 l • �0 O C 3 C O C C 'L F F U U J ~ 0 m o tc- {— F- fi 1 a. b d v V r w I- CU o a d d d y L eo % C3 ri E Cr. b44 W I C 2' C 0 N = C CA o E Tco E >, C 92 c c BEN Z 8 a o d c ID c 8 0 0 Oco 0 - m o m o J w E m • a to ti- LL O C7 co O C7 w = = N O1 ; O1 Z o y 2 o Y E o c`o m m ac w3 c i`a t v m N ca �CO O3 Q m F- m U C� d .� U ' 0 ,21 Page E-47 N co • 7 7 6 N > 7 U Et 7 �' C O N O 0 O' �U U in Si y N U IA 6 'O N a N C N ` N 0 U co O Q1 U C C > o a N C y E!UV O ak Q N C •' {';��• Q > E N O N @' @' @ t 3n� (Q @ U N '� a C N R N C _ P{ Lin 44 741 g ° @ `m °' y E E o n w g W - E o ? c o 0 x - E cc - E 'o =o, E o m H 0 U m F o �. C Z 4. Cro w� Ifca pa c - `' • I- o a t E z _ 4 Q a C o 'O a, c C O b C _C v O N N C a Z.' [b E C a E -! '�- J = C w 00 C v V O U O O O U LL E w Z C 0 0 Z' .11 I- U Fo- Z U ' U .>, a � � 4 4 R o d d e d c % I— g Q a` a a` a s W I I W 1 C a — l- N N CO N C 47 N N Z 8N = y a0i m °�' o f = °f a0i 2 2 ? 1 o 0 oz 0 oz en �� Z Y En m 0 d m g cD 2 . ro z aZi a> O Co cg > m cc -6 U 2 0 3 m m m Y I2 IV: • iii KQ Z Y ~ o ci Page E-48 • III C N C El N = O Oj 7 O E N E c U o U E m E N o U E o o g c o c E f,s i g ? U 8 O U L c 24 V1 Y U .: O V k t.,' y It a w C a 0 G 0 'C �` Ej O C c c a0 @@ u, .x c co O @ w 00 O I Lo f0 N@ CO E@ o .C @ — Inr^ — CO p fC 4 W $ w a a o n t ca I 0 124 Q E Z t d 9 w q a d o ya U 0 g k S. gc N N '6 o •+J N CO C U L O C = r‘e_ C U O 3' ta0 ,01 c V o U m t m U a di p-' U cS CI m c m w a •N o -0 o o u w Q al F O 46 a ,�_ m 3 mm U 3 ,.- Co U -oQ O .�_ o 4' o U 1- ~ a F 0 b4 Q O a � a a) d d d cu v 0 v % °° C y x O H F- E Q a a a a a a a a w U w a I N Y Q Y Y c i_ ? EL_ co pC V N N C C O f0 w y g a.N N to CO LO O- V Z $ N d O a d 'OO .E c L co0 N a to s L Efn N C VJ (7)... F • UN ca c0 d „ •N d N N U c C C U CO Co m c I 4 0 o 0 m E 6“Ce r° `1° m -O 2 r (7 t ¢ —3 —3 -so Page E-49 • o Qj f1) '• U - t y o - •cl y• t i 16 o a a 3 = 4) .-,q, 8 1 6 o c • . ` ..:,,g.:, t.'.3 . ..... o a) , :,-.: .,.wgi: — ..... c.) > ,-law:2. fa co o irto O 4 Z (t czi I 0 n 4 E a 0 O c Q ' '+0i. a 03 co l v —I O ID i2 Q v o Lt. r, I U o �-y h 1 O Q Q c W I c Z o0 > — I �Nro � � g- C7 a) 2 Z • to b)� h A 4,:c m O 1 Page E-50 • NORTH 1-25 x, EIS t MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee and Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: October 14,2004 LOCATION: The Ranch Exhibition Hall ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt&Ullevlg Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Self Introductions 2. Comments on September Meeting Minutes • No comments • 3. Update on status of the data collection efforts • Gina M. gave an update on the status of the environmental data collection efforts. A lot of the information is coming from the communities. • Minority and low income maps were provided as part of the Environmental Justice efforts. Gina M. requested that the TAC and RCC members review and have appropriate staff review these for accuracy. • Air Quality maps illustrating carbon monoxide, PM10, etc. were handed out. • Glenn G. said that he has heard more concerns about light pollution recently and asked that we consider this in our analysis. 4. Land Use • John Gless provided a review of historic, existing and future land use patterns. 5. Travel Patterns • Chris P. provided a review of existing travel patterns in the corridor including when people travel, they types of travelers, truck travel and Census 2000 Transportation Planning Package data • Near Fort Collins 1-25 and US 287 carry almost the same number of vehicles. • Graphics were provided illustrating the travel patterns described. 6. Roadway Alternatives • Marvinetta H. reviewed the managed lane alternatives, limited access lane alternatives and the additional lane alternatives. • Todd F. reviewed the upgrade highway classification alternatives, new highway alternatives, new arterial alternatives and congestion management information. • A committee member stated that they would like more information on the speed assumptions 75 &65. It was pointed out that classification is often defined more by access than speed. • Even with relocation of trains to the east—some trains would still travel along the front • range. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TACMEETING MINUTES110-14-011 TAC-101404.doc Page E-51 NORTH 1-25 EIS .. MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. • Northern communities are trying to create regional transportation authority. They would like to see CR 19 not 14 upgraded. • The team will consider CR 16 as an alternative. ▪ A committee member pointed out that bike lanes would not likely be usable during the winter months. 7. Transit Alternatives • Craig G. provided an update on the commuter rail alternatives. • Glen Gibson suggested reviewing Japanese rail examples. • Include other impacts t Traffic that would cross rail tracks if it were built ii. Highway does not yet include ROW iii. Need to create a level common measure for comparison of Alternatives • Acela in the north east is high speed rail; • Check difference from operating cost between HSR& CR • Julie M. provided a summary of the Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail alternatives • $/passenger may be a better measure in future • Please review station planning process and Interchange Process in packet Action Items: J Next Meeting: • t November 18.2004 1:30 to 3:30 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department ofTransporrarion • J 1032251TACddEET1NO M7NUTE.1110.14-0417.1C-101400 doc Page E-52 • NORTH I-25 EIS tr MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: February 24, 2005 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1) Introductions 2) Review of the December Meeting Minutes • • No comments. 3) Schedule Update • No meeting in March to allow time to present the highway screening results of all alternatives in April. Upcoming RCC meetings will be on April 14th, May 19th and June 2n° Monthly meetings are necessary during Levels 2 and 3 of alternatives screening. Meetings will likely be quarterly during pro duction of the DE IS. 4) Public Comments Kim summarized comments received since November: • Interest in the affect that approval of FasTracks will have on bringing rail service to northern Colorado • A number of comments indicating that US 287 should not be widened or upgr aded • There seems to be support for tolling, if its reasonably priced however, no indication is given on what is reasonable) • Concern about safety at US 34/1-25 interchange • About 4,000 comments received to date on the project • It was asked if the project team responds to every com ment that requires action. The project team does respond to all e-mail comments. Every comment gets a response, even if just a thank you. • When we respond, do we try to educate? F or example, price on toll roads. Answer Yes, if appropriate. 5) Background and screening approach • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation .1:1032251RCC12 0 0 5 O 005 Meeting Minvtea\Word Donrmenta*RCC-022405.doc Page E-53 S h'y • NORTH 1-25 ; + EIS ' , MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation, transportation. Regional Coordination Committee February 24,2005 Page 2 of 8 • Tom A. summarized the EIS process and the project's current status. • Level 2B will involve a long series of technical meetings. • The Executive Oversight Committee directed the project team to recommend an interchange plan that is best for the corridor, and not to steer the project too far in either direction of accessibility or mobility. • Tom A. went through a sum mary of screening results for Level 1 and Level 2A , and then the screening approach for Levels 2 and 3. • 6) Level 26 travel demand model data • It was asked what the capacity of 1-25 is today?The 4-Lane capacity is 80,000 vehicles per day. • Karla H. asked do new interchanges/widening attract traffic fr om other roads? Yes, but the total number of trips i n the model doesn't change. More accessibility possibly attracts more short trips. • It was commented that adding additional intercha nges attracts development. Has this affect been considered? At this stage of the analysis, this affect has not been considered but will be considered in latter scree ning efforts. In level 2B screening, the focus is to compare data between model runs, so in this analysis land use patterns have been held constant. • 1 • It was asked if land use changes due to transportation alternatives. Transportation improvements will probably result in a redistribution of future land use in the study area but may not necessarily attract an increase in land use. • The purpose of modeling 1-25 with additional interchanges is to test the model's performance in redistributing traffic to new interchanges. • It was commented that the modeling results show that adding more access increases traffic volumes on 1-25 and adds additional cost. • It was asked if the model considers growth in areas outside of the study area? The model takes into account growth outside of the study area. • It was asked if household and employment growth numbers come from the State Demographer. Indirectly, the projections for households and employment do come from the State Demographer since the land use projections developed by DRC OG and the NFR MPO are based on estimates from the State Demographer. • It was asked why an 8-lane 1-25 was m odeled. It was modeling to understand the possible future capacity needs along I-25 and to understand how much additional capacity is potentially needed to accommodate future demand. • It was asked if trip origins and destinations will be reported? They will be evaluated by sections of highway. • It was asked if VMT will be tracked between altematives. VMT will be compared between alternatives. • It was asked why the base year is 2001 not 2005. There are two reasons,the base year for the NFR MPO and DRCOG travel model 2001 and census data is from 2000. The model needs to be calibrated. This is done by running it with 2001 data and reviewing the result to if it mimics known existing conditions. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J.'1031151RCC1200511005 Meeting Minutes1Word Doeume tstRCC-022405.doc Page E-54 NORTH 125 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation, transportation, Regional Coordination Committee February 24,2005 Page 3 of 8 • It was asked how many model runs will be necessary for screening and how long does it take for the model to run. About 12 model runs will be necessary and the computer processing time Is about 50 hours per run 7) Household Travel Survey • The purpose is to understand other types of trips between the regions. The model and census gives information about work travel patterns, but the household survey will provide more information on other types of non-work related trips. • A total of 10,000 households in the study area will receive the survey. After a period of a few weeks the households may receive a phone call inquiring about the survey. • The household survey will be a written survey and will come with the CDOT logo. However, the survey itself will be administered by a consultant. • There will be three steps in obtaining filled out surveys. o A household will receive a postcard indicating that they will be receiving the • survey in the next few days. o Next, the survey will be sent to the household. o Finally, if the survey has not been returned the household will receive a follow phone call. 8) Other Comments • It was asked in any of the modeling efforts were improvements considered south of SH 7. In both of the highway model runs, the 8-lane section was carried south of SH 7 to US 36. It was suggested that traffic volume data be provided for sections south of SH 7 on the bar charts of daily traffic volumes. • Karla H stated that the new interchange locations shown in the "Access" bar chart are for modeling purposes only. Actual locations of new interchanges (if any) have not yet been determined. Next Meeting April 21, 2005, 4:00-6:00 pm Loveland Police and Courts • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration-Colorado Department of Transportation J:1031251RCC1100512005 Meeting Minutes1Word Documents RCC-021405.doc Page E-55 • O N ur u' >1 O N > N O U EO O a+ o y E" N E V d ° C N a O C O o o ° co > W o N N •j O p N a a' Cn — O .") O v +' C N O F t2t O ui 1 K 7 Ni m N _� O ...FC p O a U . N. OO .� VS a, U n U. C N t�} �a !6 L y �c a E o v v@ co N W m E m a E E o 5 `m 4 T.) ! W o c ~ v m A a v a 5 ❑ X (U Y O Y o ❑ o w a Cl) x z c D O t l_4 A v 1 a) I CL I O ts P. A C - O > Q .°.. C ,d N a (/i L w N = '0 C p) j W 0 d y C O l0 p N i- m , p qU M O •v v- ILL MJ-. F" R' V- O C LC per' +Li- '� I- C v ° ° O �. ?i d L.L LO, EEp ° q ho Q Z' 6 - U F Z Z 3 r r a U a�i O U C° LL NCO U E V 1 a d CI 0 a d d d d d ba $ E Q a 4 a. w s N h C ,_ N Y c C o E N d N N al L 7 E O •C 'O f0 N N 7 a N Z O V: m U aa— l`0 m 16 l6 O •° — > L o Z W z ro E °J m Z m T v ° v ❑ c .• W " m • CD Q ,,,q' Z m F°- m v M -c °' m = R t C M C % fn 612 Li U = 0 -3 Y a U Q N o ❑° M Page E-56 N N N N N 7 7 7 E N O o y U o a)U U N U • U O C U Q O ° E N O 7 O Y N [. c o d a) c U a.. ... N @ +�.+ 3 J x. 7 O N N N C 'O N N O 13 fliflhitili '. v a. o v m @c,�ss a)C9ig S@ 12 O ' a)) a) ' . o� Q `0° E .5a 42. a, O L L HW W Cr ° E H m E CY 1O .c .c E Z m ° . f-+ a °, q Y t o C4 1 Pi c t co a) ea tu c o ta 4 A a)..C co co a) a) Q N a O) U LL' O U7 N c 'a W D F O D p c () O aa) U 1/4 '� 4� E°E o ° m w- o d o 2 p is rn `m 3 U ° t` U LL p c o v e a izt o a) 'm U 3 c c° R. f- H U U n ° o m b D ~ F c0i C a C *4 C yC v r +. '€ v C d N N y a7 ay) $ _° W 0i n d Ua s a 4 a s a I E au �j W o I vain On to c $ ETC CU= N a) 1.3Y E d o m � in E m N E @ w •a =G1 ° a) .0? c m m as 8 L CD as -0 a -° _9 ° h O • Z U N N u_ LL LL (�Fa m C7 . 0 0 w = _ = 2 a) O) 7 , Z @ m1 2 d Y a E O 3 N a3 c a) E = m - c Y .E U to .o m o i= m v CD a ' °° Y ci ' o = rq Page E-57 E 3 % ( § Z- \ E. § Q y / g 6 , g 2 j / \ } § - ) § ° ) 2 k 2 .C \ ( } ] \ / \ \ . > 2 m \ a E .. 2 § - g § 2 » # ) f f § ^n q * % 03 $ - k el ( 7 ( ` k « 8 § tr § E 15 II 2 @ m a / 0 ca ca Z / * 2 » E } o ) 0 (, co c co u ( k 0 ) & c at x k ° 2 O. \ k O w \ M & { / 0 \ k 4- 0 k \ \ 0 / § 7 / / ) ! ,p2 ® ® 0 ® d t v 0 to it LL hi LL \ k ( ® & z § \ w ® a / n ° ! . 0 2 k a \ f i $ i t t k ! _ ; | ; fl LI ) 3 a a. ) f a w ] ' Z 'Pa t W « fa as o ` 3 • e c , ! � c4 ai ( § { / % c o ) k m ® m ° k ; \ § C13 g in j / ) I } \ \ \ ) • m f ® e © [ k \\ ) / 6 / } k k 0 » I j 0 ) Page • rD , ci E o o' =, d . S q. E n o- E °' of ° o s a d c di o �. E o 0 o c, v O C C' >. tl . O! O. L C N Ni a1. Q a ar Uri O.' a)� E' Oo ` �. E L, g ea o o o '• -o = as E y 8 .fl Yi O N ° W cl of L .:! o' ,E aon �'I - ,T, Oa H W E C Y. O c t w To OI .® c c OO f-- pl O c cc �dQ. Z 4 0 F O c g 1 q V o O a! Q O • y a a w O C O C C W c �_ c tl i a) �` O = a) w O > N a.ti p o = > ` c o r- p °' E S o •�, U € o > .c U — U n o m o Q „RI o o U c m LL o m a U g d Z v 0 w 'w ki r-. m o = $ E o c 5p o o S a t o c R IL o Q 1 Z+ F 1l 3 v ` o U • U U U U O F Q H u ii C C a) o ta a�i a�i d °p 3 I— E Q a a` a s a` I. W `` W o u c y N Q) A m la N N Y .. Y g Y Y N C .- > E ` �., C OO O O 7 ._ N N _C C 7 Ca w al aJ la g E N a) Z 2 L. O .a O _ a C C J a1 .c N 0 c L • Z U N cT, m Z Z y p f0 L UJ• Q d 0. a) -Op fA y/ Z c m Z ° d • d --0` d c > c N c cg t. 7L c > .S _m Q C O N E L y Nco 2' O 55 K Z ❑ _lYq Y F- -7 ae 2 U O E it ry Page E-59 i • o E Ea `8 Y L b o c E E o o -° o -6, o a as E 0) a @co E l6 g O' ;• 4 Las o CO C @ 2' @ m o cn w t t m jai w a u -, m U E Q d a) W f0 2 o zo a d i c Fs O N m m `- .N E q V O ._ .0 is O nE c n y� m ° 0 U • IU U 0 t a b e V- c i',-0 o c E 0 CO U E O - U U S CO l Q � m 3 3 3 K •• n U ~ U F0- b s 4 I o s a) C 00f d N 'oo b W U Q i a a 0. i 11 W 2 v. Z ash r c u) g co m 0 0 t- m h N 7f w c >, t co m m S Z 0 N a, u, r- > s s f0 0 r0 CI Y a -3 2 0 a) 2 n 0 1 Page E-60 • NORTH 1-25 EIS _ MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: April 21, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on February Meeting Minutes • • No comments 3. Project Review/Update • Recent comments on the project's draft Purpose and Need statement from the US Army Corps of Engineers and FHWA are being addressed. Outcome will be discussed at the May RCC meeting. • Today we'll discuss recommended results for highway alternatives screening process. Next month we'll discuss transit. • Level 2 screening results will be presented at a series of four public meetings in June— dates and cities are in the meeting packet. 4. Preliminary Level 2B highway evaluation and screening • Holly M. presented slides showing the highway screening approach,the overall Level 2B screening process flow chart, and the four types of highway alternatives under consideration. It was suggested that a picture of a Limited Access Lanes facility would be helpful. • Chris P. explained why there are not yet any model results for the Toll and HOT lane alternatives. The travel dem and models from two MPOs have been combined into one new model for the project. It recently became evident that the DRCO G model was not functioning properly for tolling. There is a"bug" in the software that must be fixed. DRCOG is working with their software vendor to correct this region-wide problem. Until then we must limit our evaluations to the data that is available. • The bar charts for the Limited Access Lanes and for the General Purpose Lanes graphics show different daily traffic volumes because new capacity on 1-25 will attract more demand—trips from other roads. • It was asked what is there to prevent more access points being added to the Limited • Access facility after it is operating, and how much pressure to add more acces s have Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Jr10322SIRCCI200512005 Meedng Minutcs104210MRCC-012105.doc Page E-61 • NORTH 1-25 At, ., EIS = '' MEETING MINUTES information cooperation trarsportatgn. Regional Cooridination Committee April21, 2005 Page 2 of 5 existing Limited Access facilities experienced. The Project Team will research these issues. • Suggestions were made to show separate volum e-to-capacity ratios for the different lane types; and to show more bars that match the various termini of the alternatives. • It was asked what the working definition for congestion is. The project is using the North Front Range MPO's 0.87 volume-to-capacity ratio, at which point conditions becom e congested. It is not the high speeds that a com mittee member witnessed along the T-Rex project in southeast Denver. • A comment was made that the favorable safety evaluation for the 8-lane alternative is surprising since the southern California experience is that 8-lane highways have twice as many incident calls as 6-lanes. • The Mobility graphic that shows both the Northbound PM Peak Travel Times and the % Congested Lane Miles will be split into two separate graphics. That will allow for a larger vertical scale to show differences between alternatives, and also the possible addition of southbound travel times. • The Aging Infrastructure graphic prompted the question of why all of the alternatives north to SH 66 are given the"Worst Rating". That is because the • 2030 No Action Alternative will have replaced deficient structures and Poor/Fair pavement as far north as SH 66, so only the alternatives that have limits further north will further improve aging infrastructure. • The practicability bar chart compares alternatives in terms of their construction costs divided ny person-trips, not "per annual user as shown. Operating and maintenance costs will be added to construction. The intent is to develop a • measure that can compare total costs between highway and transit alternatives in Level 3 screening. The key point is the relative difference in costs between alternatives. For example, Limited Access Lanes to SH 1 would cost five times as much as HOV lanes to SH 66. It was concluded that this graphic should be revised before it is shown to the public. • Gina M. presented the environmental screening results. Level 2B analysis used findings from 1A and new data such as total vehicle miles and hours traveled and peak hour speeds for adjacent residential development, but air quality, wetlands, and hazardous materials are potential environmental issues. • The differences in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) between alternatives are relatively small. • The two highway alternatives that appear to best meet Purpose and Need, 8 General Purpose Lanes and Limited Access Lanes, also require the most new right-of-way and have the highest costs. • Based on the screening performed in Level 2B, no highway alternatives are likely to have what would be considered significant impacts. • The question of what difference new fuels by the year 2030 might have was asked, and the response was given that they would likely affect highway alternatives the same way. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transp ark lion b1032251RCQ200512005 Meeting Minutes10421051RCC-042105.doc Page E-62 • NORTH I-2S EIS wry MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation. Regional Cooridination Committee April 21,2005 Page 3 of 5 • Holly M. presented the preliminary 28 highway screening recommendations. Retain seven alternatives as Stand-Alone for Level 2 screening: the No-Action; the 6-lane and the 8-lane General Purpose Lanes, the Limited Access Lanes to SH 1; and the HOV, Toll and HOT lanes to SH 14. Eliminate five alternatives as Stand- Alone: HOV and HOT Lanes to SH 66, Toll Lanes to SH 66 and to US 34, and HOT lanes to SH 34. • It was asked why the 6 General Purpose Lane alternative should be retained if it would not fully met future travel demand. Discussion included this alternative's advantages that it could provide an opportunity for a balanced package of highway and transit improvements. If only the 8 lane General Purpose Land Alternative is retained, then there is no capacity need for transit or local road improvements. There was general agreement to keep both the 6- and 8-lane alternatives on the table until there are compelling reasons to screen them out. Next Meeting: • May 19, 2005(P lease note the time change as was discussed at the end of the April 21 n Meeting.) Southwest Weld County Services Building 3:30— 5:00 PM • Federal Highway Administration.Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:10J2251RCC2005O005 Meenng MinutesWW42105RCC-012105.doc Page E-63 • « 4 0 Q . H a \ E 0 ix 0 E a E ® q a E R - © e ° ) ( ) / © / \ \ • E \ \ 2 E \ c 13 a k \ E • $ 3 f / \ \ E ) .N ( ' - § % f k a o / % § ) } - / CO/ f § ) 7 k ; # / % k / ) § ) ) / \ E 2 o -o \ ) § \ f } ( in m ■ I k Fri \ ! c c = k ) ) -c (0 ) I + 75 $ / e e § 0 E. f / o f I E. D460- 0 t § o 0 'it 0 8 / } o } $ } ) % a b o 0 o u o G o o o a 4 al k § ` § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § \ § $ ) / / / / / f f 2 f / f / } 0 ! $ LP am a 7 E c e « f 0 c ■ \} B co c ill E \ 02 22 \ CL5 \ \ / / ) \ \ \ ® ` - a ` - C o - ! - ® c E _ a tn - 2» ■ / m O / I CO e « e 2@ 2 2 6 ) 2 : Page E-64 • .. 1r T1 S'1 pli W Z HI Z E 0 y 8 v v o g. a > o O t _ ca I U E o U $ • C E N Q `C u) UF Q _ Lz o aLiu c E E Q 4 O U o m c v • oi id Y c r N E c 2.' �•C IC N N e Page E-65 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES intormarinn cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: May 19, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions • Tom A.— began the meeting by giving an overview of the Level 2B Screening process and reminding the RCC of the upcoming public meetings. • 2. Presentation of Transit Results • Chris P. described the process for modeling the transit alternatives. The process is defined as follows: 1. Code in rail alignment. 2. Code in station locations. 3. Code in feeder bus service to provide transit access to stations. • The basic premise behind modeling transit alternatives was that they had to be comparable and have generous service. Generous service means the alternatives were frequent, fast and accessible (i.e. Generous feeder bus service and Park-N-Rides at all stations) Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • .11032251RCC 2 00 512 00 5 Meeting Minutes10519051RCC-051905 dx Page E-66 • NORTH I--2S EIS MEETING MINUTES information, cooperation transportation. Regional Coordination Committee May 19,2005 Page 2 of 6 • Ridership (or daily riders) is the most important result obtained from the modeling effort. The modeling results for commuter rail alternatives show 2030 ridership projections of about 4,000 while high s peed rail ridership projections were 5,000, bus rapid transit ridership projections were generally less then commuter rail. • Daily riders is the number of riders who board the train each day • The daily ridership projections are low when corn pared to 1-25 daily traffic volumes. For example, in the Mead area daily traffic projections on 1-25 are 100,000 vehicles. All transit alternatives have had a minimal affect on I-25 volumes. • The Travel Forecasting Working Group, which is comprised of local and national modeling • experts, concluded that the transit ridership results were reasonable. T he group commented that the results were corn parable to daily ridership to RTD's long distance regional bus routes but were surprised by similar results among the alternatives. • It was asked can the low ridership projections be attributed to a previous flaw in the DRCOG model that gave low ridership projections for the Sante Fe line? This is unlikely since the model has been updated and recalibrated based on actual ridership data for the Sante Fe Line. • It was asked if the model accounts for incremental changes in the cost of auto travel. It is planned to test how the price of gas may affect ridership. • It was asked why the ridership projections are low but the market share is high. The reason is that most trips i n the North Front Range are local and inter-city trips. Trips from the north to the Denver CBD are relatively low, when compared to all trips. • The travel patterns in the 2030 model show a lot of dispersion. For instance, between the • Greeley, Loveland, and Ft. Collins area and the Denver CBD total trips are only 3,500 per Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 1:1032251RCC1200512005 Mating Minutes105i905V1CC-051905.dae Page E-67 • NORTH I25 EIS {'s MEETING MINUTES information Cnnpet8ti0n transportation. Regional Coordination Committee May 19,2005 • Page 3 of 6 day. Because of the relatively few trips heading to the Denver CB D and the general dispersion of the NF R trips it is difficult for transit alternatives to attract riders. • Of all 2030 trips in the NF R only 6% are between the Greeley-Loveland-Fort Coll ins area and the Denver CB D. • Projected commuter rail ridership compared to similar existing rail systems is on the low end of current existing ridership on these systems. FasTracks ridership for 2025 is 10,200 for North Metro, 8,600 US 36 Corridor and 30,400 for East Corridor. • The origin-destination patter ns in the model were derived from journey-to-work data, household surveys and the DRCOG roadside survey. • The BRT ridership projections are also lower than ridership for similar systems. • • Alternatives would use the same FasTracks tracks, but the ridership numbers are only riders to/from the north to the Denver CB D and do not include those riders using the system between Boulder or Thornton and the Denver CBD. • All transit altematives included the same feeder bus network. On this network ridership was high ranging from 700 to 2,100 people per d ay. 3. Environmental Evaluation • Alignments along 1-25 generally had the least potential for negative impact. • Commuter Rail A & Commuter Rail F had the most potential to impact environmental resources. • It was asked how alternative can cause a hazardous materials impact. A hazardous material impact would be caused by any alternative that had the poten tial to impact a hazardous site as defined by the health departm ent. For example, a hazardous site could • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation .1:1032251RCCu00512005 Meeting Minures10519051RCG05/905.doc Page E-68 NORTH 1-25EIS MEETING MINUTES information. Moderation transportation. Regional Coordination Committee May 19,2005 Page 4 of 6 be old gas stations, underground storage tanks, mineral walls, factories, auto salvage, landfills, etc... 4. Costs • Commuter rail ridership is 15-20% higher than bus rapid tran sit but cost 1/3 to 2/3 more. High Speed Rail has 25% more ridership than Com muter Rail but would cost twice as much. • Costs include structures, ROW, and construction and assume a HOV lane for Bus Rapid Transit alternatives and that FasTracks in place. • Operating costs were not included because art operating plan has not been developed. • • It was commented that costs for all alternatives were for a single track but in reality this system could only operate with two tracks. • The bus rapid transit costs would be about 18 million per mile if 1-25 had to be rebuilt to accommodate an additional lane for bus rapid transit operations. • Special events will be a factor in developing a transit alternative. • It was commented that traffic volumes on 1-25 are highest during a Friday evening. • Due to the dispersion of NFR trips and the relatively balanced peak hour flows on 1-25 bi- directional HOV lanes is probably more appropriate then reversible HOV lanes. Next Meeting: June 2, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 3:00 pm -5:00 pm • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation b10322SIRCC 200A200S Meeting Minutes105/9051RCC-0S1905.dor Page E-69 \ • kii In fin _ O ° E § iii E \ ro o ]IJIiiI1IJ11i11t! QE }c (2 k { i ) w 2 § ) $ fr- 0 ■ , \ k % I- m t C-.7) ` } 0 . ) ) } ° i ; { ) 2 \ % \ k 0 k § J } ° 7 \ / e t r e i t r % k 7 0 s 0 0 / U. 0 0 { 0 0 5 § § - a b m o 0 0 0 ] 0 0 / e o § 4 § 7 ! § ` § § § § § ` § § c § E § f f ) f $ P. ) f P. P. f $ ! \ \ { \ota m - § e k § e \ _N N t ) § .- § ± #) ] ^ ) C Ca ; ) CO 6 \ } \ \ 0 d f & a k } • § § r q c § _ E ® // , , J} 2 e i k 0 0 m / m I o ) k oI 0 0 0 § Page E-70 4. � y � 0 e .4k N 1 P4 li) o k k 4. E o e a E - E R 2 2 2 6 % D. o 4/)" c 4 2 k E / o t / 7 8 E o g 1 ' m z or To O 75 @ co k / E s u E O . ni § E 2 2 G 7 t E 0 2 ETO ■ E it W l 0 3 . • 2 L 0 f & / 6 k O ti 0 SI s E ) ' N . k _ _ & \ < k 2 e o % .4 $ 0 E $ triO3 m \ k i D -c = 0 b c k 0 Q L O LL O O a. 0 u 0 k < F. 2 § ) P 2 2 I $ 2 1 2 m E u 4 l 4 a. . § % O a c ) c 0 E cn c k • k n / 2 en / 2 k f 0 c j 2 §/ k f13 C CL © ® 3 § _ ce i - k ce 2 k ce � 0 w \ Page E-71 NORTH I-2,5 • EISn MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: August 18, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Schedule • Level 3 screening began this month and will continue through November. • • The project team may need the RCC to meet in September. (It has since been determined that the next meeting will be scheduled for October) 3. June Open House Comments • Leslie C. presented the PRACO Packet. • Greeley citizens are interested in transit service to DIA. • Concern with noise, development along I-25 (acquire ROW soon). • Members should contact PRACO with any questions. 4. Household Survey Synopsis • Holly M. presented a 9-page handout. • 33% response rate was very good. • Contact Holly M. with any questions. 5. Transportation Improyement Packages • The Value Engineering process, once focused on Design, is now being used during NEPA. • The Value Engineering team reviewed our packages, and warned us about Level 3 process getting too complex. • Level 3 will address the critical questions to define the DEIS alternatives. • Holly M. and Julie M. presented the 8 alternatives. • Package 1 now extends bus service into Ft. Collins to increase ridership. • Package 2 is two Toll lanes with commuter bus. i. Bus service along US 85 will alternate buses to DIA and to DUS. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J.1032251RCC110051to05 Meeting Minutee108t805IRCC-0818agdoc Page E-72 NORTH 1-25 4 3' S EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee August 18,2005 Page 2 of 5 ii. Concern was expressed with effect of toll lanes on level of service in GP lanes, and whether toll lanes could be converted to GP lanes if toll operation failed. iii. It's likely that bus operators would negotiate a price to use E-470. • Package 3 —Two HOT lanes in each direction, with BRT service in HOT lanes, and commuter bus in GP lanes. • Package 4 — Limited Access Lanes i. Only 4-5 access points along 1-25 ii. Packages 1-4 together will test transit service to DIA and to DUS: can be compared to projected ridership. • Package 5— 6 GP and 2 Managed Lanes i. Will test 4 types of Managed Lanes: HOV, HOT, LAL or Toll • Package 6 — 6 GP and Central Commuter Rail (along 1-25) and Package 7—6 GP and West Commuter Rail (along US 287)will indicate which transit alignment would be more effective. • Package 8 —Various types of transit along all corridors. • Discussion • i. Cost of the various alternatives will be factored in under the Practicability criterion ii. Construction and operating/maintenance costs, and cost per user will be estimated for each package. iii. BRT and bus options go beyond FasTracks service, such as a more direct route to DIA. iv. Potential effect of the Northern Colorado Airport could be considered in the EIS. The Division of Aeronautics has data on this proposed airport. v. Holly M. presented the "Level 3 Alternatives Development Analysis Matrix". vi. Different packages with varying elements will answer various questions on which types of improvements will operate best. 6. Transit Stations • Julie M. presented the site maps that show the V2-mile radii for potential station locations, and the station site criteria and design criteria. • There will be 3 station types: neighborhood, Park-N-Ride, and Transit Center. • 2 to 4 sites could be identified within each green circle (but won't be for FasTracks stations) • It would be difficult (for design and operational reasons) to convert BRT to Commuter Rail when ridership warrants rail, but station planning will consider this. • More stations may generate more ridership. 7. Transit Station Working Groups • Leslie C. presented the handout, which proposes four geographic working groups • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCCI2 0 0512 0 05 Meeting Minates10818051RCC-081805.doc ' Page E-73 NORTH 1-25 ' EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee August 18,2005 Page 3 of 5 • The role of the groups is advisory, meeting every other month from October 2005 to April 2006. • Membership is open: TAC/RCC members are welcome; residents can volunteer or be recommended by TAC, CDOT or the project team. • Contact any of us if you or someone you know might want to serve on these groups. • Station locations may be refined beyond Level 3 in the DEIS. • The intent is community involvement on a regional basis. 8. Transit Funding Concepts ■ Gina M. presented 6 possible transits. i. Formation of a Regional Transit Authority (like RTD, collects sales tax) ii. RTD's district could be expanded to portions of our study area iii. RTD could, through a single private contractor, Design, Build, Operate and Maintain, to provide service further north. iv. Joint Powers Authority— government entities form a separate board (like BART in San Francisco) v. Transit Development Board —as has been done in San Diego • ■ CDOT could fund and operate new transit service t • Ron P. said that as a legal technicality, the Regional Transit Authority should be a Regional Transportation Authority. • Ron S. (FHWA)asked if listing CDOT as a potential source for transit operations creates a consistency issue for CDOT on other corridor studies. Next Meeting: Tuesday October 11, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm Topics: A Screening measures • Alternative Development > Interchange planning Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • .:1032251RCC1200512005 Meeting Minutes10818051RCC-081805.doc Page E-74 7 . III , > . ( j ] \ I \ T « \ a 4 Ili / v) E Q 0 ) 0 E a oo § \ 0 % % E f E ° ) ) k § q \ \ \ z •] 3 k i. co / § _ / , . $ / « / ) Co - \ / - / / \ { / } 5. t § « \ c { { / ) — — ti § { ) N % / ) \ } 0 \ } O i- \ } \ La / C0\ { | ± ]. / g 111 E as il "6 ) E $ ) co A Q. &Lu a) ) § ± o ) ! z KZ I- I- F \ % E ) E ( \ f ) e ! K \Ct / — \ § ) \ \ t / } % / \ \ 0 © e 0 f e O re- k / E J § § / = f o { t \ / ¢ o o Cl) fig () o ± ± J 0 0 ) ) 0 ) ) ] \ « k i { 2 7 2 { 2 S. w u E / tp k ]zoJ CO t • a ) _ s \ N f 3 F k * ` !o 4 & \ - Z § c c a 0 I / • i 0 / 0 $ I , E E7a c ° = 2 § r - . . b ( ` LI �f k goal -2) k \ 6 a O O / / 3 Co e \ CO gePa E-75 r+ E. . . . . . . � \ . . ww - — � x — , . . , ; i /» , j . . i « . \ m 0 / © / § j [ § $ ] — / -5 § § E k ; o 6 E ) / E § _ / Cl) 2 E % , / k } \ \ / } \ ) \ k \ \ § E $ \ \ 7 if;- } E « a \ \ \ § / \ & § ` \ / E. \ § E d ( 9 Q / { } C73k / § : ` ` — ■ E 2 \ m ) O ± { § { / E @ ) \ { w « e ` i 0 E 2 7 0 2 J 5 & t ± I ) 5 hi- — — ) } a n ( k \ \ \ \ \ CO H CO / 0 0 ) Et; % 11. m » — » ) / a ba \ / ca \ \ \ I / 0 \ k } k o o § \ \ k » } \ f H 45/ 0 - } } j \ ' 0 2 H 0 0 co m = 6 G 0 0a. J 0 _i 2 ) oa ra 2 4 . a i § ; ■ § § § § § a ) ] { o / ) » » § § 2 2 2 2 | 2 ; a L. a a L. a. 0. Q. Q. a a a o ) \ § § c » r.o co a. / \ Im / } / IC ) 0 } \ ) = 8 $ n E 2 C Fe k Tes 9 � B j / / 0 / e § cm o / O + \ / { 0 \$ 2 « j ) co / 0 0 0 / ) § 0 k ) { / k G ) Ci me E-76 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES intonation cooperation. transportation Regional Coordination Committee January 12,2006 Page 2 of 11 Regional Coordination Committee MEETING DATE: January 12, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Coordination of Local Elected Officials • 3. Follow up from December Meeting • If parallels make sense should there be a partnership with CDOT and locals to build and enhance parallel arterials? • This should be left as a possibility in the process. • Is Ridership and TOD Land Use part of the public meeting information or is this just being done at the request of the RCC? • It is intended to be an opportunity for those who seek information on ridership forecasts which can not be done during a TAC or RCC meeting. 4. Town Hall Meeting Presentation 5. Comments/Questions • Is there any information on cost estimates for packages A and B?Also, is there information on the overlay of LOS on these packages? • Right now, the focus for the RCC is to decide if these are the right packages for DEIS evaluation. At this time, we do not know the answers to the LOS or costs.• Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration.Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCC1200610112061RCC-011206MMdac Page E-77 NORTH 1-25 • EIS .:. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Coordination Committee January 12,2006 Page 3 of 11 • • Why does the B package make sense?Alternative A focus on the study area while Alternative B only focuses on just 1-25. It seams unlikely that people would travel to I-25 for bus service, but they might do it for commuter rail service. • It is actually faster from Greeley to Denver to go west to 1-25 than to go south on US 85. • Is there any information available about public acceptance for the Toll Lanes? • If population shifts in Weld County, do the packages properly address this issue? • If the adopted Land Use shows this shift then the packages will address this issue. • Why is the BRT alignment down the middle and not commuter rail? • BRT is a joint use with highway improvements but commuter rail is in a separate right-of-way. Also BRT would be more cost effective. • Provide a connection from Longmont to the north metro line. • Analysis shows it serves only trips from Longmont to north metro does not meet • the purpose and need for the project so it was eliminated as an alternative. • Add a description about what vehicles could use the HOV lanes. Commuter Rail Comments/Questions Comments • There are no commuter rail systems that have subsidities, around 40 to 60 percent make up for the fare box. • There are also subsidites for highways as well, and maybe as high as transit subsites. • Placing a commuter rail in existing right-of-way is less costly than a new system. • Would the highway need more improvements if transit is not implemented? The highway volumes are more sensitive to parallel arterial enhancements than to transit improvements. • Have a hard time envisioning commuter rail through Ft. Collins and Loveland due to the impacts. Light rail may be more feasible. In the commuter rail category there are engine types that have different level of impacts. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:103225 RCC110 0610/11 0 61RCC-011206MMdoe Page E-78 NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation Regional Coordination Committee January 12,2006 Page 4 of 11 • Why is it less costly to go through an urbanized area, than in a rural area where there is more potential for TOD. If the central line is provided communities will not plan for it. Commuter Rail in the central alignment appears to address growth in west Weld County and Larimer County growth heading toward 1-25. • The west side commuter rail would be too slow. The central alignment would provide a faster service. General Questions and Comments • Getting out of Ft. Collins on Harmony Road is difficult today. • TOD more often occurs along rail lines where there is not a major adjacent highway facility. Primarily because the highway and attracts auto use and creates noise. • The WCR study • CO is different—TABOR gas user fee required voter approval—easier to raise • transit fee then gas tax. Next Meeting: Thursday January 12, 2006 3:30 - 5:00 PM Southwest Weld County Services Building • Federal Highway Administration•Federal 7}ansit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251RCC12 0 0 610112 061RCC-011106MM.doc Page E-79 REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE • NORTH 1-25 pi,;,.,.;.,,,,_,,,,` March 9, 2006 EIS ,. Page 1 of 4 information cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Public Meeting Input Summary • Kim provided a verbal summary abou 12 public eetings held i e study area, the number of participants that a - d an Vie of the prima comments and questions heard from attendees. 3. DEIS Package Discussion W:?c o • Participants were asked to ide- 1 re the onsiderations that should be addressed during the DEIS? he r .a e su rized below. • / A. Re•ional S s - " ,sit k'' Votes 9 a) Rail 10 20 •x`8 years? 'f. b) Bus & rail is to be con % ient c) Seamless t ers bet .vet mo s. d) Intercity transi it ^ • . e) H �s stait•r ',cations for�, " uter rail? A ative Modttions,F f)*• ' I the users o fflki cles" &motor) have any commute surfaces, trails? g) Bi ' le paths. h) Alt - " ves to drive] i) Multip - vel mo j) Alternate o s* k) Maintain m al focus I) UP Rail on 86",- m) If toll lanes are a must, why not combine with commuter rail in 1-25 corridor to give drivers within the region the two best or fastest options? n) Are we "building" our way out of congestion with roads? Is that possible with our current rate of growth? o) 4/4 Ft. Collins to Denver p) Public preference for rail? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • C:CFusionMx\w*wrootlufdocs\i25northforty1private\RCC 030906.MM.doc Page E-80 • REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE NORTH 1-25 --' a , '; March 9, 2006 EIS �.v,c' . Page 2 of 4 information cooperation. transportation. B. Compact Development Votes 7 a) Focus improvements in existing urban areas b) Encourage compact communities c) Encourage walkable development • d) Encourage transit-oriented pedestrian friendly communif- e) Ensure compatibility with locally adopted land use an' "'portation plans f) Control land use along 1-25 C. How will the Pro'ect Elements Be Financed Votes 7 a) How do we get Feds to increase fuel tax fo a sportation. ". b) Allow for privatization of busses where t :. tv -rs pay their o a4. c) If we have rail, the riders pay the entir .in their ridership. d) How will commuter rail be financed ( nsit dist 'r e �yy ,. e) Tax subsidy for transit? f) Will Park-N-Ride have managed parking. te ° > g) Commuter rail lines/stops— ill manage"t� •? RTD? h) Will TOD's be evaluated for i) Tolling is an equity issue in C a EX • j) Instead of tolling, can BRT help for ed Ian k) How will non-roa. air ..s be fun i r.�tdpW who will build toll lanes. Will Tolling be•; „`"epted? ' tr. I) Managed tglt . DIA? 'Ty m) Will toll lane .=i:-ccep ar1 n) Will s ess o e} a , '.,. , estion in general purpose lanes? If so, toll tail,`O p 1 of .fur inal package. o) tpironme _ ;j stic w .st of toll lanes & to a lesser extent, commuter rail & BRT p ,.ost? How to '_4, D. _ gpd Investme ` Around Region I Votes I 5 a) Para l oadways n into account for relieving 1-25. b) Don't . ' ue to iall emphasis/trend on 1-25. c) Don't tur -25 ' f driveway(like 125 SE Corridor) d) 1-25 should Q come "Main St". e) Spread the inv stments around the region. f) 88% commuting in N. Front Range is East—West. g) Address congestion in multiple ways. h) Very concerned of'congestion relief for special events. i) Reduce congestion. j) Integrate land uses with transportation improvements. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation C:\CFusionMX\wwwroot\cfdocs\i25northforty\private\RCC 030906.MM.doc Page E-81 REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE NORTH 1-25 • March 9, 2006 EIS '^'s5t7e Page 3 of 4 information cooperation transportation. k) Will relief of congestion come from side/parallel roads along 1-25? I) Package B: US 85? m) US 85 — CANNOT continue more Traffic Signals. n) US 85 corridor growth in future. Equitable Service & Access Across the Region: o) Easy access between feeders and transit p) N/S service across region q) Package A: More mobility for more people. r) Support existing population centers _ s) Population B: May not serve all communities. A at .ystem on Greeley— Commerce City. . , .i. ..1 E. Look at how plan could be updated dress i, Votes 4 ex andabilit needs be and 2030. °4. . a) (Preserve) Right-of-Way on 1-25 - Roa Bus. ail? b) Plan timeframe, Must extend beyond 20 se of time to construct. c) Plan needs to stay flexible f ure change F. How Do Costs Compare Be en 1 �' Votes 3 d (All Cost Categories) • a) All cost must de "t a best b fo e ' Ai any other highways have needs. b) Are costs equ ckage c) Data prese ust trut. ly pres ros & cons AND show individual component comparison; d) Incorporate ffecti crtten to evaluate transit & highway alternatives. I G. 'M(biite*T_ave je ¢ Votes 1 a 4 thtmize tirf4 D li inimize trave to transit. c , imize portal t „ srtal tr it time. d) 4 lanes for com" ter buses, need maximum priority. e) For.' , plan for ervice level B or C? f) Need 1es fro Iwy 52 to Hwy exit at Harmony. Build 6 lanes now and the other 2 lanes lat 4 g) Congestion' St be less than today. Better than 'D'. h) Decrease travel times. i) Quick Travel to Denver. H. Prove How Safety Will Improve Over Current Condition Votes 0 a) Safety must be better than today. Federal Highway Administration.Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • CtCFusionMx\wwwroohcfdocs1i25northforty\privatelRCC 030906.MM.doc Page E-82 • REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE NORTH 1-25 March 9, 2006 Ejs , ,.,,, Page 4 of 4 information cooperation transportation I. Improve Function of Interchanges Votes 0 J a) Make the interchange at 254 (Johnson's Corner) a full interchange b) Interchange access must be better than today and not complicate system (cost & construction) c) Need a "fly-over" interchange at 1-25 & Hwy 34. 4. Transit Station/Interchange Access Update. A memo and graphics illustrating potential transit st tions were distributed for review. These will be discussed in detail at the•: R eeting. Meeting Handouts: i p, Draft DEIS Packages Gra , tr, Transit Station t orking Grou c errno °kE • ' y s �1 \A� '• I'A 4 gkuttin Op f �• y11 Qp S`°�,} eld pty Svcs. Complex • 3:3 tbit-R to 5 'pm _ .t a k4 Wk.ian ♦ • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation C:\CFusionMXlwwwrooticfdocs\i25northforty\pdvate\RCC 030906.MM.doc Page E-83 ,tom i ec-//e/dji Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 tc, i Regional Coordination Committee EIS • Page 1 oft information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE - May 11, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. No Public Comment 3. Design Development • The team is currently integrating highway, transit, traffic evaluation, stations and environmental information. It will be presented at the June meetings. 4. Land Use — Presentation by Ben Herman and Darcie White • See presentation for detailed information. Questions/Comments • 1. Don Feldhouse—Why does growth include US 287 and 1-25 and not US 85? Please add US 85 information to presentation. 2. Ron Phillips— How do you define a TOD resident? 1 mile, 4 mile, 9 mile? Darcie W. stated that it is defined as 1 mile for this effort. Ron P. asked if we know what percent of people within that distance that use the system. Ben H. said we don't have that data. Ron P. stated that he felt that the presentation diminishes the information. We can add total ridership. 3. Cliff Davidson stated that the San Diego system is about 20 years too late. Densities limit ability to serve the areas if they already exist. 4. Tom A. asked Cliff D. how he would rate Denver timing vs. other systems. Cliff D. said that where rail exists, it will work well but some areas are developed and have no way of being served. 5. Don F. asked how the team is accounting for household income and cost of insurance. Ben H. stated that the model does have the ability to estimate ridership with increased costs in travel. A sensitivity test was completed that indicated that doubling auto expenses would increase ridership on transit by about 90%. Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transponation • J:\03225104.RCC\Minutes RCC1051106\RCC 051106 MM.doc Page E-84 • • Meeting Minutes NORTH 125 Regional Coordination Committee EIS Page 2 of 2 information. cooperation. transportation. 6. Cliff D. asked what the increase in density is and the impact to land use. Ben H. stated that the exercise illustrated concentrates 2030 development in a smaller area. Cliff D. added that the change in land uses do impact the eastern side of corridor, not just a 1-mile area. Bob Garcia asked if this the team felt that this would change the results. Tom A. stated that he felt that the two packages being evaluated address our project needs. 7. Stan Elmquist asked what the percentage increases in employment and population were based on? Darcie W. stated that these were based on peer systems and a reasonableness sensitivity analysis. 8. Ron said that it was important to portray data clearly in order to not give fodder to the opposition. Be careful about the presentation of our data. 9. Cliff stated that housing affordability could be one benefit to a transit system. Today a lot of income goes to transportation. 10. Julie stated that she would ask Gina McAfee for more information about how land use impacts will be evaluated in the EIS and report back to the committees. • 5. Expandability— Presentation by Julie Morrison and Tom Anzia See presentation for detailed information. Questions/Comments 1. Karen Wagner reminded the group of the importance of giving proper weight to public acceptance of rail. 2. Bob G. asked if there is need for a median pier. Holly Buck advised that the design assumed no center pier between SH 66 and SH 14. 3.. Holly B. was asked to check available capacity north of SH 14 on 1-25. 4. Karen —"Next Steps Page"At last MPO meeting, John Daggett gave a presentation. If you are talking to the community about land use plans, we should work in conjunction with the MPO. Ben will talk with John, and as part of plan updates,we will work with communities. Next RCC Meeting: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:30 PM -3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225104.RCC\Minutes RCC\051106\RCC 051106 MM_doc Page E-85 • NORTH 1-25 EIS AGENDA nformation cooperatiop. transportation. REGIONAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE Southwest Weld County Service Complex Thursday May 11, 2006 4209 Weld County Road 24112 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM 1. Introductions 1. Public Comment Period 2. Design Development Update 3. Land Use Review 4. Expandability Discussion t • Next RCC meeting: July 13, 2006 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex 4200 Weld county Road 24 '/: Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Adlninistration•Colorado Department of Tansportation • J:103225104.RCCMinntes RC000511061RCC-051/06 ng.doc Page E-86 NORTH I-25 Meeting Minutes EIS Regional Coordination Committee Page 1 of 2 information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE - September 14, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig— Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Discussion • The discussion was based on a power point presentation handed out to the group. The details are included in the presentation and the general topics are described below. • Carla Perez started the presentation by providing information about why are we here. No funding has been identified to build the improvements that the EIS is evaluating. We • need to start the discussion about how we are going to funding the project. • Tom Anzia provided information about cost of the component being evalutated. • Stan Elmquist commented that a phased ROD would require that improvement to have independent utility. • Heather Copp discussed the current state of CDOT's revenue forecasts. • Carla P. described the difference between what CDOT's revenue forecasts estimate for the area and the estimated cost to build Package A or Package B. The difference is referred to as the Gap. Carla also described case studies of other projects that required funding and what methods they used to obtain it. • Julie Morrison described the DEIS process and the associated funding milestones that will need to occur in conjunction with the DEIS process. Preferred Alternative would be identified in the FEIS; perhaps in 2008. • Steve Rudy, DRCOG, reported that DRCOG has assembled an ad hoc committee that has met twice. They are charged with evaluating funding opportunities and options in the Metro area. • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation RCC 091406 MM.doc Page E-87 NORTH 1-25 • Meeting Minutes EIS ttik Regional Coordination Committee Page 2 of 2 information cooperation. transportation. • Cliff Davidson, North Front Range MPO, reported on the recent transportation summit held by the MPO. Participants were asked to spend 1.3 billion dollars on transportation improvements. The 1.3 billion dollars was a result of approximately what an RTA in the area might be able to generate with a 1-cent sales tax. • Karen Wagner was on the SB1 taskforce. The group discussed, at length, the need for the state to fund transit. Colorado is one of a handful of states that does not fund transit. • Cliff Davidson pointed out that the MPO is working on a regional transit management program. • The group discussed the need for a champion of this funding effort. Recently Longmont hosted a meeting of Mayors to discuss funding. They will get back together in the next few months. • Lee Kemp —Southwest Weld County may become part of the district. Internally, there( • has been discussion about their building the Longmont to North Metro piece. Please Note: There will be no RCC meeting held on Thursday, October 12, 2006. Next Scheduled RCC Meeting: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:30 PM-5:00 PM SW Weld.County Services Complex • Federal HiginrayAdministration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation RCC 091406 MM.doc Page E-88 • H' r s' e. Meeting Minutes NORTH R5 Regional Coordination Committee EIS `.._ November 9, 2006 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM mturmation cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 2 MEETING DATE: November 9, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig—Jessica Woolery SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. OVERVIEW OF PACKAGES • Holly provided a brief summary of the two packages and the No Action alternative that we are currently evaluating in the DEIS 1) Q: Is the TE lane going to be toll or hot in Package B? The projects executive oversight committee suggested that we leave the management policy open at this point. Therefore, it could be either. 2) C: Keep in mind light pollution. 3) C: Need for re-education of public about m oving accidents from traffic. 4) Q: What is the capacity with 6 lanes? Approximately 120K vehicles daily. B.• OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PACKAGE RESULTS• Chris Primus and Holly Buck explained preliminary results illustrated in handouts. Handouts included interchange volume diagrams, highway volume projections, transit ridership graphics and other handouts. These diagrams include existing, no action and package a daily volumes. Package B is still under analysis with Wilbur Smith. • Travel time from SH 14 to E470 at peak time for No Action is 58 minutes, Package A is 45 minutes; 25% better. Today the peak period travel time is about 40 to 45 minutes. Package B numbers will be between No Action and Package A. • The project is attempting to achieve LOS D or better along the corridor. With No Action, LOS E or F is in all urbanized areas. Near SH 5 2, LOS includes the planned widening. With Package A, travel time improves and LOS-D or better is achieved along the corridor. 1) Q: There is a higher ridership of I-25 on Bus Rapid Transit than on Commuter Rail on 287. If people have to drive to get on station, wouldn't numbers be down? Can you explain? Legs into Greeley and Fort Collins provide direct access to the BRT from the communities. 2) Q: Does dwell time with Commuter Rail include moving people on and off? Yes, dwell time is the time at the station and includes boarding and alighting. 3) Q: Do the numbers include 7 days a week or just Monday through Friday? Estimates represent and average weekday. Answer: Weekday numbers. Weekend will be at 60%, special events up 10%.All in DEIS. 4) Q: Cost of Packages? Package A is approximately 1.6 billion; Package B is approximately 1.8 billion. 5) Q: Will Commuter Rail have to blow homs like freight trains? • f. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-89 Meeting Minutes NORTH I-25 • Regional Coordination Committee EIS rt4k November 9, 2006 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM information cooperation transportation. Page 2 of 2 C. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY SITES • Steve Silkworth gave a presentation on the rail and bus operating and maintenance facility sites being considered in the DEI S. D. LONGMONT TO NORTH METRO CONNECTION UPDATE • Paul Brown provided the group an update o n the evaluation and selection of alignment V to connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro line. Since our last meeting with the TAC we have met with the hi-towns and Erie two times, we have collected additional data as requested by those communities and have identified alignment V as providing the best travel time and having the least impact to the human and natural environm ent. This is the alignment that will be carried forward for further evaluation in the DE IS. E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPDATE • Jessica Woolery provided a update of upcoming public outreach activities including a highway small groups, south area public meetings and environmental justice meetings. f • Next RCC Meeting: Thursday,January 11, 2007 3:30 PM-5:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration.Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-90 Meeting Minutes NORTH I--25 • Regional Coordination Committee EIS January 11, 2007 3:30-5 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 4 MEETING DATE - January 11, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO —Jessica Woolery SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. OVERVIEW OF PACKAGES A. Tom Anzia provided a brief summary of the two packages and the No Action alternative that we are currently evaluating in the DEIS. 2. OVERVIEW OF EIS ANALYSIS TASKS(NOW TO JULY 2007) A. Gina McAfee and Wendy Wallach with Carter-Burgess explained the 20-22 factors that will be analyzed in the DEIS. Handout material included information on each factor, what is analyzed under the factor, and which entities the project team will work with to mitigate impacts when it can't be avoided. Request for committee members to identify which factors they would like to be briefed on following the analysis. Factors that are likely to be of most • concern to TAC members are: 1. Land Use -Analysis will be on how the different packages fit with existing land use and future plans. 2. Air Quality—We will be using a new model FHWA has developed to measure ozone impacts and other pollutants on an area wide basis.Will measure the vehicle miles of travel and speed, which can change emissions. Carbon Monoxide and PMto are hot spot issues. Will be looking at signalized interchanges to measure and it is likely to be a concern with the cities and counties. We can show what air quality will be like in your area. 3. Noise and Vibration 4. Visual 5. Transportation Impacts 6. Cumulative —This will look at how the impacts with each package will sum up and vary from the other packages' impacts along with what resources may be at a tipping point or breaking point right now. • C: Fort Collins will be interested in the cumulative and additive impacts to the area around Harmony and Timberline in regards to economics, water quality, wetlands, air quality and wildlife where the City has been working to preserve. • Q: How do you deal with the sand at excavation sites? How is it categorized • and/or mitigated? Does it have any impacts on this project?We will try to avoid excavation sites. It is a complicated issue with mineral rights and we will likely use a mitigation wall. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration •Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-91 Meeting Minutes NORTH I-25 Regional Coordination Committee EIS • January 11, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. • 3:30-5 PMoP P Page 2 of 4 • Q: Looking 30 years out,will there be some information that addresses hybrid and electric cars?Are you looking at futuristic items that could have an impact? That will likely be addressed with energy. • Q: Will you talk about land use with station locations and areas around the stations?Yes, it will include information from our transit station working group. B. Other resources to be examined: 1. Social Impacts— includes a look at the changes in population and affects on community activity centers. 2. Environmental Justice (EJ)—Jessica Woolery and Kim Podobnik explained outreach tactics and comments received from the identified EJ areas where outreach has been completed. EJ areas include: Fort Collins, Longmont, Loveland, Greeley, Gillcrest, and Brighton. A summary of all public comments including EJ comments will be presented at the next TAC meeting. 3. Economic Impacts 4. Right-of-Way • C: You can never have too much ROW. It will be cheaper to obtain it now • than 10 years in the future. Then you can prevent future building. 5. Water Resources and Water Quality 6. Wetlands—Quantified by acreage. 7. Floodplains 8. Vegetation/Noxious Weeds 9. Wildlife 10. Historic and Archaeological Properties 11. Hazardous Materials -After identifying where there are hazardous material we look at a way to contain it during construction. 12. Parks and Recreation Sites 13. Farmland- impacts are classified by acreage. 14. Energy 15. Public Safety and Security 16. Construction • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-92 Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 • Regional Coordination Committee EIS .... January 11, 2007 3:30-5 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 3 of 4 3. DOCUMENT PREPARATION A. Stan Elmquist provided a brief explanation of the basic chapter outline of the EIS and the final document review process. The final EIS will identify a preferred alternative and more impacts and we anticipate it will identify phasing as well as impacts of phasing. B. Q: Chapter five of the EIS, financial, still has some real challenges. What level do you plan to put in there?We are negotiating with FHWA to discuss phasing in the final EIS. During the Draft we can look globally, but before the final EIS approval we have to identify funding for construction and maintenance. That will be the subject of future meetings. C. What are some examples of the transit options?We could increase RTD territory or the cities could get together to develop a transit district. NEPA process requires that you have ongoing funds for transit maintenance and usage. • • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration- Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-93 Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 Regional Coordination Committee EIS ` • January 11, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. 3:30-5 PM Page 4 of 4 4. FUTURE TAC BRIEFING AREAS OF INTEREST A. Members expressed interest in hearing impact information regarding air quality, noise and vibration, environmental justice,water quantity and quality, land use, and transportation impacts at a future meeting. NEXT TAC MEETING: THURSDAY, MARCH 8,2006 1:30 PM -3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-94 s yy;AI: - 3 ° j ao ft v " 5 E " oo o E c " ' 'o' E E o A a s-r !a, t a� E o gg a; m E o ai E 1^ 4 ti ... A C > c 8 o w O co `p 0 U W N 8 8 C ii,V YO O �+ W - "`!' Qr: o ° o o DOA T7 € c°a o f° v `c3 o o ° o Z ,+v al N V ill a n H PC-1 -Y 9 a E O 8 ,+S ' Yro 'P E m u a) y 7 M a) y s c o o t- o 9 m a o 4. fit E m o E m a - g y m `° a3 O w 8 0 m �+ - F- v c a 2 ccl) c W $ o U o `_ c o m E m CO ~ a c z o u, pay s r' ir ti, ` _ r co O E tc cit. e a E '8 d m - c L. co U a-S al d + _; E Y 2 r U o' ' r V a ,' f a O m 5• c w a @ Z { i f ig-Thl • F.g F 1L 1, S)C c p c c e o c O O c 3 rn o ;r 2 O O17 3 m Q = 3 U O et a O (� m O ad ✓` ; ,'7L, L 'C T U — m �.... LL Ire a' V O W U w0 L. 1=y o o k3, a? Q LL 3 Z 0 0 U 5 m ,..t-',<' „r w '- w a; L a--_ ms` s n i O i F. 17- Q _m U �, c c E ? a } : , m CO _d D u 9 v ., , o o .c m o c m o o m . S c o c o o c o o ° 6 O 2 - `. I E, F- o n < o x Z O O 0 2 U K U3 o m -) F U 00 M o _.:O Una ai, a: Vvloo sY ' Z' 8 J O N ,,yy j7 N •" 11 ae M . = Q m m m m 00 m 0] m m U CI 0 0 0 W W u_ u. Li_ tl 0 0 0 Page E-95 iy: rd (y • S kil, c, w F o " *h' O v c v E N ai > 0 0 0 ,-s d ai p ' m ? E d o q o _ 1 � ' g. a v a c > o o f9 o f in to 'w_ d o O O c > q `� y v o c > c 8 H W S �.. �� ' F N A v N c -o O V c 3 p 0 c j c 4 C O m O L. o N V _ d 'O a1 W O 4�i}f ro Ism _6006 N O -' N N ≤ U a . ictli 7) oO a e— -,1 N v r 0 E V CO m _a :.' d a EO to N w L N c U N ,_ N N d O N �. . {S i1.1 t 'c :o Y E Y m y o 0 E 0" c o m J i' c ,F,. =- '° • J E :o �o ( � E g = E * > p ftvr? ;` — E o a) al 5 m U > ` J al a) a) ci a a d `) a) m o vL m m c a coa CO C M V F -g I 2 W Z. t m ti E oCa �3 U a "re FF" • 0 a _ -0 N.a s` (Is o c LT LI m b o c m c c c c o a ag a� qtr� U K o 2 U o o m _. J E o, F. 8 g 2' d O c CO U CO V U J m J o m = E o 0 `o m a m l o _. c `o U y al c m u. L.L. O Y « m cc c LL F U a U U b } OI- Z•h E _ �x= .En o_ r x1' yy 5g w N D E ; t c v z v c x rn m f- a a) a �° OV w m c m r d = w m `m m m 2' >m o E Mc E �' v N .,r' (� ¢ Y U o m N 'm (7 r a H C� C7 m a c� o O c+ n 0- C U C o8 1 O ci _ � U r_ O • O , Z m 4-1 m. _ c N a m c c N E c g rD of 0. WS: : ?.,. O N c N N O) N O O o a) O o N N V ? M -=��ls %_ C O tD N N E N V L C 5, .5 U N 'O j d re y of :'_. :_,a C7 C7 S = 2 2 2 -�i X Y Y - -o, J g g g m g g g Z Page E-96 r:t 2> ° C o o 3 E H i c o m d m v V1 V� £`+` v, @ in 2 0 3 o s 3 m `� m9 F- y F.y y �'- a m 15:60 '0 c m w E o le 46, �r ire AC: yNm ≤ , U © �/ m NN Vi ric):z 2 .:• I o o :g g :_ E ° _ {� � o g v '� o E Doi c a m �° � of;`,1 CO N W E N U N N Q N ❑ d m o 2 co cEr) a 0 ti m N m a { cc E X G E > H co o o m 6 N T0 • a { c ��> 8 z• c i m 1 ER c r S V V OI C d c m �` c ki a o a m Cl- r m c U To E v o U •`a U U F- co 4 v ik. W ••off V b:z _ I Z v:-.Trt i p i •5.3y 1 Q C! n "3 y.. L 0 Z o. N m G a x S > :. •C C 4 m > C m m C p v ULe q U d r Tr co U - a Y U U ❑ -m> ill O > m U' `l E Q U U oo /11,4": 01 S • J p N N :Al Z ;.« _ o o co _ �J a m a I c o X V G N d u .c T J T N a 433 C 4J Iii 'S m _> x,41 Zr, w L' > a E a d f° �- W ° m C p) .° Y _y a 0: N a ci =r , tw. o a d a a a a c7 a� r7 Page E-97 e. . — - ,� • f } 'yvw« co (7 ( yam ` \ _ a ) \ % ) { ri \/: /} @f \ 5 \ \ \ / 2 \ " ii \ - / \ # / / \ j \ 9, cm ( / 2 \d y \ ( -» /y! ) �/ \ �� / $ _ \ m } \ 2 -r \ S \ § y \ d - | k i / a § ? \ � \ } ) S > 0 - \ ' § jk / 3 - / § , - . \ ) . g - c, z t e § j \ / \ \ - . Page E-98 NORTH 1-25 € ' _ • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC MEETING DATE: March 8, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Complex ATTENDEES: See Attached Sign-In Sheet PREPARER: Carter=Burgess Wendy Wallach COPIES: RCC members, C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina opened up the meetings with introductions. She quickly covered about where we are • in process, she reviewed the packages going into the DEIS. She distributed handout about where we are and remaining steps. The DEIS will be finished this summer and then we will begin review. There are a number of TAC/RCC meetings over next several months, including combined TAC/RCC meetings which will begin at 1:30pm. Gina also covered anticipated steps between the DEIS and the ROD and the roles of local government policy makers. 2. Gina talked about coordination that recently occurred with municipalities in southern area. 3. Gina turned it over to Holly, Holly began by covering tolling results for Package B. • Wilbur Smith and Associates looked at tolling in the years 2015 and 2030, varying toll rates in order to keep toll lanes operating at LOS C. • Access and egress will be located between interchanges 2 miles apart to avoid creating weaving sections in general purpose lanes. • Sometimes demand exceeded capacity in the tolled express lanes so in 2030 the cost needs to go up to maintain LOS, other access and management concepts will also be explored. • We may be able to meet demand between SH 60 and Harmony Road with single lane. Question asked about as cost per miles goes up for SOV, it will encourage more • carpooling. Chris thinks we could find "soft data" that demonstrates this. Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-99 NORTH 1-25 -kt: EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 2 of 6 Do you have maximum per mile, regarding cost? At about $1.75 people lost interest in paying. 4. Chris covered daily volumes: Existing volumes are 60,000 northern up they are up to 125,000 and as we move towards the metropolitan area. No-Action volumes increase 60 to 80% over existing. Package A attracts more traffic except for metropolitan area where, Package B attracts more traffic (since Package B adds capacity in the metropolitan area and Package A does not) Package A increases 80 to 100% over today. { 5. Effects on arterials: • Chris covered change in volume's compared to No-Action. He reviewed changes to traffic on arterials parallel to 1-25. Someone raised question about how transit alternatives would effect arterial volumes. Chris said overall transit would not effect these numbers much. Generally Package A offers slightly more relief on Package B. Package B, will have slight reduction on arterials. Package A has slightly higher reduction on arterials in northern region. In the south, package B has greater reduction on arterials in metro area. David B. asked if that is because of all of the congestion in metro area, and Chris confirmed. 6. Holly covered traffic, existing, 2030 and No-Action. LOS is used as measure of delay, except on mainline it is density. A= good and F = not so good. Queuing creates problem with circulation and flow so the team looked at this, the team has recommended improved interchanges, increased ramp spacing and frontage roads. Along 1-25 mainline under the No Action altemative —21 miles operate at LOS E or F in the • AM peak hour and 49 miles in the PM peak hour. For Package A and B the miles operating Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-100 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 3 of 6 at LOS E or F is reduced. In A 7 miles in the AM and 18 miles in the PM and in B 8 miles in the AM and 18 miles in the PM. Interchange Evaluation — Under No Action 19 interchanges ramp intersections would operate at LOS E or Fin the AM peak hour and 25 would operate at LOS E/F in the PM peak hour. Improvements with Packages A & B reduce this to 6 or less in both peak hours. Those that continue to operate at LOS E/F are located south of 120th Avenue. Stations — 57 intersections were analyzed for to evaluate commuter rail station area impacts. Under No Action 5 intersections had 1 or more movements that would operate at LOS E/F in the AM peak hour and 8 that would operate at LOS E/F in the PM peak hour. Package A would increase this to 7 AM and PM peak hour intersections with one or more movements operating at LOS E/F. This reflects the attraction of people to the station, increasing traffic. Mark J asked where congestion around commuter stations is occurring? Holly will provide • an answer to him. Holly said even though there is congestion; there are positive impacts elsewhere. Action Item: Holly get information to Mark Jackson. Looked at station intersections evaluated along 85 for commuter bus service—3 intersections operate at LOS E/F. Karla H. asked about station evaluation, she said there will be problems associated with congestion at stations, we need to disclose this so communities can make informed decisions. Mark J. said, this disclosure will let communities looking at changing land use to ease congestion. 7. Paul covered grade crossing. There are 2 rail components: existing BNSF alignment and Longmont— North Metro Connection. Twenty one new crossings are proposed with Longmont-North Metro Connection, 16 would be at grade, 5 grade separated. Two types of analysis occurred. Using FRA program to predict accident information. The team also looked at exposure factors. We will grade separate where we can, on major roadways, difficult in downtown urban • setting, where structures are close together. Where no grade separation, we will make improvements to reduce exposure at crossings. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-101 4kr,( NORTH 1-25 • • EIS ,,:,- MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 4 of 6 Paul will be issuing report. We haven't reached out to PUC regarding this specific project. We may be able to reach balance. If they want us to grade separate everything, it will drive up the cost of Package A. Someone asked if this is major issue with LRT. Paul said LRT in Denver has at grade crossing "street running scenarios". Outside of Denver there are lights, gates and supplemental safety measures. Mark J. asked does FRA has different standards for LRT and commuter rail? Paul answered technically LRT is not regulated by FRA, it is just shared by Union Pacific so there are safety regulations in place. Paul not sure how FRA will rule. David B. said if commuter rail is separated from general system it will be PUC. Where • sharing it will be PUC/FRA. 8. Chris talked about ridership. He covered magnitude of riders on commuter rail going from FT. Collins to North Metro. He reviewed the types of modes used to access stations are included. Commuter bus ridership grows from north to south as well. There are 4,300 riders a day from Longmont to Ft. Collins. 1,200 riders on CB between Greeley and DUS between Greeley and DIA 350 riders. Chris tested a different option. Longmont to Ft. Collins from NW rail service. It resulted in 3,300 riders per day. Commissioner asked if you had 3,300 riders a day—what would be the cost? And how much would have to be subsidized? Those costs can't be addressed today, they will at a later date. Dave clarified, we have included a fare to use for our model. Ridership results for Package B: 5,800 riders per day, 5,600 are on main BRT, 200 would use alternating route to DIA. Would this put Shamrock out of business? They currently run this route. We haven't figured that out. Dave B. asked under Package A what would happen if you added bus service along 287? Chris said this is a lot more dense, we may look back to get this information. Action Item: Chris P to follow up • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-102 NORTH I-25 " 4 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 5 of 6 CDOT—on Package A, there is no direct access to DIA. Chris said you could take commuter rail to DUS, and then go to DIA or you could drive to park-n-Ride along 285. Comment from audience: Comparative ridership between Packages A and B are so similar, but cost differences may be different to help discriminate. 9. Chris covered travel times: Under Package A, there was more volume but travel time is better than No-Action. Package B is better if you use tolled express lanes, so this managed lane could be managed into future, it could keep being adjusted. E-470 to 20'" (shorter segment) = longer travel time because of metro area congestion. • Package B becomes faster than Package A. Between Ft. Collins and DUS: • Travel times will be 130 minutes with No-Action. • Package A= 120 minutes. • Package B = 113 minutes. • Commuter rail is 93 minutes at 40 mph average speed. • BRT is 72 minutes, very fast—75 mph. Stopping at median stations, allows for faster travel times. Holly asked if private auto travel time also originates at the south transit center in Ft. Collins. Chris says "yes" in peak periods. A question was asked about why commuter rail is so much slower? There are geometric issues. There are speed restrictions, plus more station stops. Typical speed are 35 to 40 mph. Chris discussed Greeley to Denver. Commuter bus has different alignment so it is not "apples to apples" 119 minutes or so. Travel time is competitive with private auto. • Holly asked if private auto follows same route. She thinks that we should do auto, check 85 for comparative purposes. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-103 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. RCC Meeting March 8, 2007 6 of 6 Action Item: Add US 85 Auto Travel Times In summary, Package A generally has better travel times in the northern study area, Package B generally has better travel times in the southern area. Transit is generally competitive with general purpose lane travel times. A question was asked about Two River Parkway East, it will be improved, is this reflected? Karla H. needs to check regionally, constrained plan. 10. Jessica provided Public Involvement update: • Interchange working groups wrapping up, memos available on website. • Open houses mid —June. • Jessica went over latest public comments received to date. • 11. Next meeting May 10th —Land Use. ):\_Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\RCC Meeting 030807.doc • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-104 • lila r. .tn b y 4"K j` Ti .o1 U O N p N p I o K^ ' 5 , E m o E • o > " o E i;�•. 'fad o N .i≤: .: E • c E v o a E 6. E E Sti 1 N c o v N o E o °? p « E E $ o `o - gs{�=:Qqy c o c ° c ° c o " 0 0 o c p c • (v is.,, p .0 o ° > 0 o to o a1 u N U O EE a) C � Wrb Y m u ° C at, e n C to 0 v °m L ° E m c O r T:,``, sro' C Y O tYJ N '. 3 J Y jp N O C O� O` D O N m ° O m s J ,g; m m u m z 3 o y >rl) g : 5. E c N o N E Z --g4,---414e' E a ° x E - c� m N ° p 4? c°+ d @ • E a o i1h.2- 1- N a x N C O C W N p U m ....dt _ d p c c m I-is .r. `mcZ m E m PP mg 96. N, i E m E i - m 1.41 W w o T .c 1 a m y Q U O O ~ a t W U f a m > Z i F m III •t — P r o a N N yy 10 .6 = N .c P O c 0 'NO a) al C , m toi v c .w m U , a 0 I- c 1- m ° I- c) a m imp x m o m a = c V O ¢ O U, > D m p 8 U & a LL 0 o. C 4-0- F=- Z 0 F W 0U LL LL 1B 0 c ra LL 0 U U 1- U CO U 0_ J C m o CO _, Z k W 't't'trill w k _ALA. ‘11‘ �<aa `` _. :gt g z w ic 0 . Qy !'r` : c c c• z a y in m a, .,�, a o :it, Et E t = a > p m `N c C p p C m v 1Z (° [d O L m O s co O O N d c t 8' 0 O O (pc D N O to N C 05 O N 2 ;�:ys,E • - -) Ym Q di x Z O U m o d' rn O m -) 1- U In g 0 Q U O U ao cc ta; .(' :.. c N C N -a O 6 `d s: ,• :a:• Cm Y O N Jai O N o En is E W 7„ m n i.7 : co E E N O g N > > O C m E .0 a H o N U N E m of ss m o > > ro m o �° l 'O E m 8 c m m m o 0 Q m m m m m m m m U O_U_s U 0 111 W tl LL It LL U' U` 0 0 0 Page E-105 (443` C. N • E, !whs.' v m ��i % J J O N J Q r • Is-jo 5ii 't 1.;:'2 FW i L L C E s ca N E 0 U U 0 • J E �'-`.y4-r -oi E .° t. ccrn E a ao, E co E E E al -63 m 0 t a4i;''M Y L 0 � ti E ° i ° U m ° E rt 1 O rta co IIN F- 'a CC (A N W Ce `6� c cti�— o a w 5 a' o D a m 12 c S a E_ rn rn rn v �; F ° m U U U m ° U F 00 J m U b 0 3 O 0 -0° "C "° LL O 0 U O o w V m W C m LL O r U ;-° m o LL O Z m LL m o c 3 t O F F U CO U I-- U I al A 1`W 13 CG C O _ V Zr--- H m am _ 1. z Fa E .i 2` t, 'c . ` ca L x d md m i° ci C' o 0i Y U 0 ° m m co m p c'a E m 2) -°,- j ° E22to 05 O 0) -0 o a m a J co m O R o F O O m Q U` -i C7) 8 U o a w; x O Zitio Q 0 3 Ol co c _ c c N E c . 5 -F., °- Mc‘,,,- m Y N c w d t0 O o 0 0 J O _ N N L O .F: ... -0 J U N ` T V Y 0 C c O 0 N y m c W 0 M ..)._.;., wJ' l0 10 N N J E c U L C = T U 0 N 0 O QC m ni .i: 2 2 2 2 2 -�i Y Y Y - _ . Z O Page E-106 TI o O'7. 1,58. 2E U d J ., 7 Y N N U Jp F '' 'y U c a a • oU m U0 C O U N U J p N E U a H ill a ai n4 te ,tip t E •3 E. fl 2 o 2 a u. 'I' m H •a E o hi IT> U LL N CD o -s v oc s o s .� d a; v D IT cg f m v o 0 y P Pal t N N c a S F .c O F K E Z sp 'w' m g e E o a0i r v D E m m c . a fl' t° :w o o • m m N 15 ? E L N d ct'ye E O "V n ; > -• rTD i @ 3 yIta oits ti E l _ � 4.,••:: 0gsl s o m t G ) a)i �\ c o 0 m rill P.O� N a 0. FY N Tv N >. E t4 2' r0 Q= c N Oo m o c m > E U O n w N U rc ca C i C0� C � CN �' C NO. Q J O rn J > CJ aaTo r.7 U Q m ❑ OW ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 0UI- mJo �,i�! Z = R I-, cc U o F- I- 1- U O .c O m -to ots r co F � J m U J U Ottf'; in pa U i, 0 _ . . Z O Q m VI r [� U m I. p E € 4* o c c a j s o d c c c a o re o m, `m = o 6 E c L o m m c, E e y " ,- c E 2 m rn c o v a 4 o c.) o -) w o > m _, Y 2) Q 3 m On 0- s: @' 0 anm U > o M .":2 v) r„ of?-, a S N Ecz: i;,: N CY z 6 0 L O 0p '•v.� :. c ,. V O d C� m • Lai:; . :;; o s cr5 a c E d y a f v m e .c W m roi :s: ` N s a, v E 5 v a, c E = d Q v a) a Y a w m, m • vii �i n o° n° a a° a o CO 0 rn an H > tia3 3 s z Page E-107 .:::::rp.,,.......:,.. ;:y..:. •,. gp • t,. O �' O • a 1r, •. Nt.i .a s i O Ea C q L N 5 .II 2 C s� .. W o a . t- o y l�. Y Z W C v� ,: 3 �]\ti O g -b G r O •�til -a! r(:: Y y rY g ; J -O1 O lib O:j69 r3 $a ° { ¢ • E pp E i f ; ' v r.. Jv`"„'' w_ 5"9 .t:&0 a c y h —/ . z p sac 2f.Q d c Z a, `.ii E� jri O- 4 Uo O1''T'`' G Y ce O u d VCR ¢ > <3 (4' 2? of C • Z r;.s' "': : o o Z J' E S q ,,, O,*5 °' Cr0 2 J= S' °1 Wtogc'i Page E-108 Meeting Minutes NORTH I-25 kits- • Regional Coordination Committee EIS May 10, 2007 3:30-5 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 2 MEETING DATE - May 10, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO —Jessica Woolery SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. OVERVIEW OF PACKAGES • Cliff Davidson - Just updated employment stats and it looks different, for future stats. • Is BRT less conclusive to TOD because of station location in the median of I- 25 and it is just not very walkable? • Bob Garcia — Northern CO doesn't have to mirror the urbanized TOD of Denver and there is flexibility on the attractiveness of the potential BRT stations. • Cliff Davidson — Package B concerns me because all our eggs are in on e • basket. If all the land use being conducive to 1-25 and BRT development then everything shuts down when there are issues on 1-25 vs. with Package A when there are options on the east and west side. In turn the level of service remains better. • Bob Garcia— CDOT recommends what to do, however, it is up to the local entities to develop and how. • Cliff Davidson —Concerned that Package B will pull development out of downtown areas and push toward 1-25. Centurra is an example. • Doug Radenmacher— I think development will come toward 1-25 with either package either way, but just more pronounced with Package B. • Chris Primus —All 3 packages increase demand on East-West corridors in regards to traffic. • Why does No-Axn increase development on East-West corridors if 1-25 is incredibly congested? The East-West corridors (Prospect/392/34) that can operate effectively without 1-25 will increase in regards to development. • Don Feldhaus— Do BRTs in CA go along freeways or are they through communities? • Ben — Many through communities near major roadways, but not right along. • Chris Primus— Between LAX and LA has BRT along freeway in median. • Cliff Davidson —The difference between CA and Northern CO is land • available to be used. We should be looking very long term for the investment. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-109 Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 tY Regional Coordination Committee EIS • May 10, 2007 3:30-5 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 2 of 2 • Doug Radenmacher— Does NI-25 EIS tie in with Bob Driggs' rail plan from WY to NM? Discussions on how it can marry up with the long range rail plan. • Doug Radenmacher—Weld County is pretty well set with 85. There is little unincorporated along 85. It will be within municipalities to consider. 287 has much more unincorporated area. • Cliff Davidson — Utah is great model with rail as municipalities had to bid on having a station located in their town with TOD. NFMPO is considering 5 TOD areas in our 2035 planning. NEXT RCC MEETING: July 12, 2007 1:30 PM-3:30 PM • SW Weld County Services (Combined Meeting with Technical Advisory Committee) • • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-110 • • § n: i . $- m g If F a O O 0 J N 5 '��- Ea.; 0 0 �' R S E R c4, 2 E . c E E o o ai o v 'o m u° o 0 a ., : v, o m o y O E d o E E m V� c o - > c .o c O " O q ca c o cis m N - O O > , L p U1 O N O O U N N W i' n t c S w o c c E ° .° c v o '" v cNi et .m ,. = � c Y Y, O o Yn 3 a D x o NO c .- 2- �- a $ y Vi a', wil m m a o m 3 0 .O y > v 8@ E o H o A c `, E . d on E m .O m _ o S o H ° a m ❑ w o x.t F y 03 Y a 9 = I C c ❑ W o 0 o U m - — c o c c m F- -O ± t Z co .E m cc 2 c c co co '` E c ai E K o m m m co c U cZ o o m a 24 2_ y c 0 y m 2 C U z • r . U {{pp� C Q C y p N t.` R O N — N co m m 3. hz c a) Uo y S o ma • z E ad O 2 O c O `_ti) LL U.cc 0 U C U O LL . U O — soN Z 3 U m U Q 3 U U Fo O [A Iii K a ti o I . Z O a Q d N c z a °� ce O £ o L o N o c C W o O O N N C ° c L G V Ol U� O V .� F ® ❑ --) Y -, Q O a. z z 0 U to t- U m t®// O m 10- U m ci y a m a UN o ,1 • J O O a V o O Z .a (V s+ c N I; 0 CO p y O tNL, 2p iA z s_ W 0 M a CO N o EE N D O O N > > O N a E t N p z m U .- re co 2 co . 1. L. i_ , 3 tO a o O v E do m m m m m m m m m m U ❑ U U ❑ u! w_U- n. U. Ui C9 ° Page E-111 . : FE-Fs„. N • y�} g -i, s7 N P a to J N c • y{s` ` ` g o 'o o a 4 o ? E D 15 `m $ m o p4 1 �a E o $ u ° o o a N ri c o U ' 3 m m m 0 $ Ts w o x a m TO _u c $ _ N _ w $ m N a H o m G J 't u o > P4 g _ Ri O m C m r 2 V N a 'O 'E U m J H o >� .00'-- E U J ° U ) m m C .r m N J m t_ l'-' To s W. — ° ,� m a c L m o �c .. Y c `m c ^J E m C m m C U I ° -c ' J E a E a co CC c `o E ti E E m o = m i `'a ai(pyly, O in C F v 2 a 2. m E F d ( iaz • g as . o .A -° N 2, z c d o IE7 ° o 0.) te w` m e o c > > a m c E m _� m o' . 20' F o m V o U t m o V F= co n m ......1- a, ° E o 0 3 `o co a r '� mu_ ° a v o m. , -77 U CO w` :zr .c �i 0 F b m _Jo LL m Z ir, F o U c s*y= V _r a a 0 en - c' ad 3 m r.= "n F V F 0 Z U al ILI t it kg hk': ha O s-rya ' V = m z K o = Q y m 5 13 r4o - .sr 4i `C°, m r as a) _ `m _ m _ m _ o °yyy �' > E o w O V * 'd C� ¢ Y U J --, C1 m g - J co m 0 x -mj J Ca F- F5 o o a V N o Z .° a P O t Y 't G O N O 2 C N m 0 6 O G° O o o m N m E Th. M >�O - N E J U �? C Y y a T O. .° Y m C Ol ID NO) C t m N W �, N Cl i;•-' o Al- O W m m m J „,t) , �t� m N N ° Y L C C „n= W ) U R� CO a1 = ' a a 0 2 2 T 2 2 ; -� Y Y Y Y_ -mi -mi -> .I .4 J 2 2 2 2 Page E-112 r 4 i ti 15 E E n N N CO C U ? E U E ry O pEp > ❑ U• c O >O co C • O O U EO V U ° ° p U• 15 O• E O X (°j U N Y N o duo '? � p m ' o v' ?� 3 d y 3 t co o • a o w 8 sf '_ 'C O U @ . D p U U .-(c) V LL O @ > LL p LL @ ty g..-D N C , al '° C C V 2 O Y O U OJ .J cQ U U }'_ H E sf.` O ] N al a E N N N ≤ .[ g N N C Si ,., , El' E E D . @ c E o E @ @ w @ c N - E N c C U @ O @ Y a) • m p O y H j ` @ ° 'E E E 4.) c v p a w L N > p a J C ta C E. 1t •_W CC a as C m a V @ E m - /��J��$p¢i @ N .Z` y o 2. G a, co 3 -e 3 co U 's m av ii- `m `o m c E U U W rrki2 U ^, Si Z O H s 2 d a ago Z a • p, m � N mro a O G •N T N @ C N O 'C N aJ en a aJ a) >` U OU @ 5. E o o m E o@ c t m c o co m m ill 0 E U-3 a CD -) J CO v -, R M a 0 0 0 w ❑ -, '> r, m o VS o ,egt a to o • " F3 oo �n Z N O N .9. O co O rt p N N C N C p g C a7 C N C @ >, y a o W ro CI o - m E a>i y E L°' > > h -8 E .Eu c v wog -f' , 2 cm r, c W N2 M ' > `` z z o a a _2 a o� a s a. O CC CO u) y en 0 0 0 Page E-113 ill V„ 8 � '. - f o j a a d 0 8 Th a q c3'yco N C Y. ._ ❑ C ,c - Q� 3 V Yb r ,e o 3( a 3 3 y L 'C 'ii ..N " E u_ N N ❑ N c o = o \ • �� y m • p m ,,' `o u oa, .3 E Tu 1 d oo V 0 o a ■ O W �, N a r a O n ' a U • - � C U _ _ alE vV {' 0 U m O~ m 0 a J CL O d otl ❑ > a p.. "J E N v JTi t a 0 4 I- m r U , U �n .I . ; v LU b v z R 0 co adin z O k C o CD c a' NV co F ; Tc;BE O N y C tOt`q y '- C Y 4 O d w ` '� m Y Q "m+ g 2 U O re ca o a o o ' z U N O r >,c, I = o c 0 0., s.. n y m o _ 0 2 t Page E-114 Meeting Minutes NORTH 125 Technical Advisory Committee EIS • Regional Coordination Committee information. cooperation. transportation. July 12, 2007 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 1 of 4 MEETING DATE - July 12, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO/FHU —Tom Anzia SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. OVERVIEW 1. Tom Anzia kicked off the meeting and then introductions were made. 2. Reviewed schedule regarding upcoming meetings. o September (Noise &Vibration), o November (Environmental Justice and Water Sources), o January (Natural Area Impacts). • Tom A. said in spring of next year, we are looking for input on DEIS developing consensus on FEIS and the Preferred Alternative. Tom A. would like to start at 3:30 pm on technical subject and then start RCC meeting at 5:30 pm. to the purpose of the 5:30 PM meeting is to review collaborative process and verify process for building consensus for the Preferred Alternative.. • • Tony Ogboli said 3:30 PM may not be a convenient time for TAC members. Tom A. said this was feedback. We heard that a later time works better for the RCC, therefore TAC is being moved back to 3:30 PM to accommodate the RCC. • Tom A. would like to verify RCC attendee list and review collaborative process and schedule during upcoming 5:30 PM meetings. 3. Tom A. introduced Gina McAfee. Gina M. reviewed the purpose for recent meetings, i.e., present analysis results on resources from build packages. She reviewed build packages and the DEIS process. 4. Gina M. said we are talking about air quality at today's meeting. She talked about geographical analysis, boundaries, attainment and non-attainment. • There is a requirement in CAA that projects must be in metropolitan regional transportation plan before federal agencies sign-off on it. 5. Gina M. said, in general, many pollutants will decrease, due to tightened emission controls. Over time, they may increase again since we drive more. This will have policy implications. • Someone asked if we make adjustments for hybrid vehicles and account for different fuel types. Gina M. said we cannot account for this in the model, but we do some sensitivity analyses in DEIS. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration.Colorado Department of Transportgt..5le E-115 Meeting Minutes NORTH 125 k Technical Advisory Committee EIS r Regional Coordination Committee • July 12, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 2 of 4 • Gina M. said we do this in compliance with 1990 CM. We need to make sure that it won't exceed established NAAQS conformity. Transportation projects need to go through analysis to make sure they are in conformity. We look at mobile sources. Projects must come from a conforming plan and must be in the STIP. The ROD needs to be fundable and come from conforming plan and TIP. If it is in the plan, FHWA may still sign it, as long as it will be included in TIP. • Conformity requires that the project cannot contribute to CO and PM10, no new localized hot spots. • Plan and TIP must be consistent with omissions budget in SIP. We do analysis with APCD and EPA. 6. Jill Schlaefer discussed trends more than specific data. Jill pointed out attainment areas, NAAQS, measured by matter in the atmosphere, plus MSATS. EAC for ozone covers most of front range counties. Ozone backs up against the mountains. Ozone is created by a variety of chemicals, and then combined with sun, become ozone. 7. CO has been declining with time. This is due to emission controls. For PM1owe look at emissions by engines. Airborne dust is ten times the emissions • generated by engine PM10, but engine PM10 is more dangerous. 8. NO,(many oxides), plus VOC's are primary concerns generated by engine exhaust. Powerplants and other industrial things cause it. Major concern is in Larimer and Weld counties, which are in EAC areas. Increased VMT in 2030 is what is evaluated for air quality. • We are also looking at a change in the economy. Agricultural activities generate pollutants, but agricultural land is being developed. Engines will increase pollutants. We are already at the edge of non-attainment for ozone. The ozone threshold may be changed or lowered. With proposed change, it would definitely be in non- attainment. 9. Other problems are nitrogen near Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), which is doing environmental damage. • Six toxins have been analyzed in MSAT's. These MSAT's will go down between now and 2020 due to emission controls. 10. There has been an eighty percent increase (49M) in VMT over 2001 on North 1-25. New proposal could add 40 to 60 buses. Rail makes an incremental difference in system-wide VMT. 11. Summary of results: • 2001 - 28M VMT daily— Looked at interim year and 2030. Emissions are affected by not only VMT but speed as well. Increased speed increases emissions. Po3o E 116 Fadarnl Ainhwnv Adminiatrnlinn• Fodornl Trnneit Adrnin;ctrntin,, i /5 r,- W rri rti9 Meeting Minutes NORTH Technical Advisory Committee EIS • Regional Coordination Committee July 12, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 3 of 4 12. Tony Ogboli (CCD) asked about why VMT numbers for Package A are higher than Package B, with transit in A. Total VMT accounts for transit, but people need to travel to transit. Plus, Package A has general purpose lanes, which increases VMT over Package B. BRT removes cars. In addition, ridership is low on transit, and the study area is so large. 13. Preliminary results show significant decrease between today's emissions and future conditions. Emissions are slightly higher between 2015 and 2030, due to degrading of auto fleet. In addition, moving traffic from arterials onto the highway generate more emissions, because of increasing speeds. 14. MSAT's will be downward trends with ongoing time. Diesel PM declines significantly. Question: Why is there no change in pollutants? Is this because of controls in technology? Answer: Yes. However, with engine deterioration, it will go up. Emissions are declining while ramping up VMT on road. 15. Hot spot results: Done for representative sites in the study area only for CO. Numbers • are small relative to threshold. 16. Mitigation: Region wide is more difficult to address. Strategies for local agencies were reviewed. For the project, Bus fleet and rail vehicles should be Tier II and IV standards. Construction mitigation to reduce dust is very important. 17.A Larimer County representative said "It is surprising that there is no significant difference in packages between 2015 and 2030." • Tom A. responded that we are seeing this partly because of the large study area. Gina M. said this is not surprising because she has seen it on other projects at regional levels. Gina M. stated that, if you look at localized areas, you might see differences that are more noticeable. In addition, part of it is constraint of tools. 18. Gina M. said we would dissect information by maintenance attainment areas to better ascertain impacts. 19. Vicki asked why nitrogen deposition in RMNP is an increasing problem, but results show a decline. Gina M. said this is because we look only at mobile sources. • Lisa Silva said there are still NO„in the future. Because of ammonia from catalytic converters, this may be a factor in the future. 20. Lisa Silva talked about ozone, 8 hour standards, and exceedance highlights. Rocky Flats is where most of the exceedances occur. Exceedances have been recent, but have not been averaged over 3 years. If Rocky Flats hits .088, we would be in non-attainment. • • CDPHE will submit data to EPA in October. We will violate it. Control measures on mobile side include gasoline composition, and tailpipe controls are most effective.Oil and gas sector regulations are more stringent. It seems to be making a difference. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of7ransportne t-117 • Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 Technical Advisory Committee EIS • Regional Coordination Committee information. cooperation, transportation. • July 12, 2007 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 4 of 4 • What happens when we end up in non-compliance? That is to be determined, but transportation funding may be at risk. • New ozone standard has been proposed, which may be primary for secondary standard. This may be finalized in October, then non-attainment would be official. SIP's would be modified to address this, i.e. more control measures, such as vapor recovery and VOC's from paint. • Do they limit fueling times? Lisa S. does not know. They need to look at new list of control measures. • Bil Haas asked what is short-term implication of non-attainment. Lisa S. not sure what it means for projects like this. Gina M. said Denver was non-attainment for many years. The analysis does not change, but SIP commits the region to control measures. If those do not work, transportation funds could be at risk. This happed in Atlanta, GA. EPA and CDPHE would work together. • Brad Beckham said emissions budget would be tightened and harder to meet conformity. Many projects may not be included in the plan. The budget is related to • standard, which becomes a difficult policy type of dilemma. • Bill Haas had comments about EAC. He said this approach is novel. There are about a half-dozen around the country. If EAC were not in place, we would have had non- attainment a while ago. • Jason Longsdorf(CCD) looked at tables, and Denver, CO exceeds emissions budget for CO. NEXT TAC MEETING: Thursday -September 13, 2007 • Time: To Be Determined SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration• Federal Transit 4dministratinn•Cnlnrndn nonnrnnont of Trnnvnnrr?Nnte E 118 • 0 s LI. coN C a O N N a 3: o f N N n x 8 o o > d c a o E E a o E cc e $ m E c E E coy o h o u o :: U g E 8. i. S y c c8 FA 8 c c E , 6 0 8 m o c a tn H .r t II j V .k O O O € N O OJ O yyU V '�T VJ 1.14n4 W I ' N t — v ` ~O al a U N u O � al _� c o o ,� c v -e -o a' A `.. c o o o cYi m °' 3 a x Y .92 ti o c ° .2 -o o m m i F°- m n a = a-3 c '� c ❑ w 0 o co o U m o 0 co •. W Q 1-'- I C c a= ii HI 0} IE: u a a c a E Z r • 2 r tl, u 8 I .i .i -2Nay = N N L O 2' c Ooci i.L 7 a Q c °2 ro U m ] 0 0. O H c Q F- m = = al— NI o Q`p a = E O O m p a 0 . P- o ad u z o c❑i c w v o u ti ,y ❑ OC z >. �. U 3 U V U o 0 c U Is m L ILI F , 2 Z is O a { m a a Z N N c m 0 t E `m > E $ .cc cC. rn 5 T o m d c m e c a v m o U } ' Ip o Y ° m o o r o S o 0 0 0 �' Q 0 o. = Z a a fn (J a' co ❑ m g F- U m 8 Uy N el N 4 O W N M r N O Y m m h- N O W a dl r E L U a N c c Y N —O o D m = W W �` � N Y Y N Cu N O O 0 N > > 0 Cum E V h c y 0 O }i c o gym' o @ > > o 0 0 v E m N o -c o Q co m m m m m` m m m m O 00 U ❑ w uW IL u. u.. u.. (0 (0 Page E-119 • §/ § E -co k > al ea ` / § , ) ° 4 \ ° , ! e \ w k § } j } 0 \ \ ts \ } } \ § \ \ } \ ) / 0 \ * / ® ! « ® a ` t / ( k e ` § K ^ t @ $ \ - a / ( ® ix 0 / [ 0 \d / ) \ \ - \ E 03. co & E CO 5 , 44 \/ Q 7 ) ( § = ; & ) i ` s \ co E E - > E _ ■ ` ! ) k •» E ° = a 7 { ® > CO ^ * t ` ] # 43 m CD 2 CO - d { k r \ \ 0li ) 0 ( ) ( e@ e n e < { o \ k { R { / \ \ k ~ ( ) ) / § / ) ) ) { U § 2 ) [ H 0 ® k / } 2 0— al »\ | zk 1 k ) \ \ ) { \ \ \ \ ) e \ } ! ) / } / \ •\ ] \ \ { \ \ S ` \ � ® � ` z , ar,1 § \ . 2 - aayy _ E . N . : ° - t J »§ « » To . , f | { § § f 4 ) i ° ` _ § ■ % \ = ( ' . CU E 2 as ! , - 2 ` t •E / .z \ \ O n g - a « 2 2 2 2 2 Z z 0 ii. o ! » l o 0 g n Page E-120 \/ ri CU T Ca ti)d @ 6 % / k j \ = z ] q \ ; / « ) zi a \ \ � •_ ® ) g , { ) a2 \ � � o , \ / 2 / $ 13 co It ED / ) ) ) ) \ \ $ < I / ) ) ( \ \ o z a e o \ #2 • 0 7 k f j ) = c ■ » ai # CO r { ) = i : e k = _ 75 tO V3 Q { & `Zicia- 2 j ) ( f b § 2 B L } < / # z ® f / o ( CE" 8 B t ` ° ) ( 0 / / ) } \ \ lil [ 2 ,/ ., , �� . j § 2 . ! S . , 2 G ? ; § » / / a g • E « 7 § f \ E & , z s ( t / ® ` & 2 ® o o owl ; / J / 347 , kJz226sa § ) § ) ) / 2 \ CC 2 \ 9 * » . cc § on \ / al o je0. _ ; , 15 ! C eh ; S | $ « k o ) a \ TA § § co` \ § s | m z k as ) e u_ a ■ z m d \ } ] } t t f ( 3 CO CO 0| } { } 4 j _ O N• p lGaw N n 3 J J m E O O E U O ti N o ❑ O E U U O In J U c J In N x.. U U d O O 6 p U O J ° E N U U O O > m E a v o o > r Sc rn m ° o o 4 v; v c -° 00 a� o c S0{�E o „ W 13 O f0 J l0 .C ‘Vir '�' N N N "O In Y CO 0 I G 114 a N .C L L C N Y Y Y U N d o G N c -o U o m m 2 q a E r o — a m o 0 O N N N j Y '� �' C lU O CC Y ✓.o (n CO �- r o o m to c a m m cl a t-- 2 CO c aco " M LO TO> o 2 m W co E a r d v, • _ O e .4Ol 0 O) O O c -o O 'O N O c E O m O � = m O (j K. o O m U U L m o 0 o r U c >, '�. q'1 O J J U w ° m r c.) cof t� o m Z U U a 1 U I-- J U ad O T. Z U IUJ d ii 0 f I ` C) w Z a x O 8. z 0N w Eli TD 43 a el ai IX 2 j a. o 0 0 `m r • m y J.S3 = m ° m `m m 0 = m m a H p Nicr l, W I U m (7 Q Y U J g CO g J (� o m O LL CC �J • L O A` U N Z W I— a m h'_ s E W _ c N rn p _ E c m ^y 'n O N 'O %C v J Yi 0 N ` N c "O Ol Y N VC Y a ≥. 0. Y N c V Ol 01 °i' W o r " m m a o m` m a°i .O a 33 m 2 o " L aye&D2 tY z vi to con. t7 <? <p (7 2 = d o m � � Y Y `� � ' � J n w • o N N m 3 E o N a) > > EO O O o> in i 3 to or o ° C W U m 0 O E O V �? U O O U O E ° Y c it; y N U O N O ai U C O U O U N y E o o a c io n m ID (NIni ° o v s F` W "e -o 'o a) m m o a N 3 3 m a c o ..+ .. Ft; U C N P L J N t .O L O m µ. ` O V N 2 a) - a ._ _O Et'J .O r -O S. V a _ lL w c ` ° m E c o '` s o a> ≥ .i o ce O - N 'O , N O _9 0 0 1>p c a j 0 Z c Em °i °i a 3 o _) co o E Cu o E E E E £ m E ., — _ E > c '� �� 'm o c ° o id m c m m c d x a J m D m ° _ �[ E °� t ti *� U V (t N C O y F W 0 al • US c F. ! N CD J en ° c c 40,. . V Qpr ¢ o' 8mo oo w = m O m o m � U a m F- I- ittF �, r 3 o U V o U LL a y o cr I-° V U F°- O U «` U U U W k 2 a O X U W z a H O 2 Q a h z co >, as a, Q w >. O a1 a) s 2 m w O o d re m m .- 'm of c ao c ? 2 o m _ E o E m c ._ u J F D H C7 C.7 cq w 7 J b U > > a Y U C7 U 6 0g � m 2ce •Qcm o° ° U 6 d O ° a 9 Z J2 w N To E o O o ma ° c m ? ° c a c r ' c c d' z O 5m m m o U — 4J > >y 0) 4 o S 0 a E 3 I I 14 4 . 4 1 r 1 i I I ��e E-123 v. ° (Q. § ; G ) ) qco - ^ 4 -9. t § 2 ) ] E } §70: ; ; ) ; . In CO : I \ f § ( 9 , - m / } / \ \ k & ) ) f ) § / \ ( | f ! | _ | -2 _ = 7 {_ \ _ ° , } ` / } - \ \ a § / .E { 0 ° ' E Tot 0 § » f = \ } / 1111 o E) A^ 0 ± 7 « » a r ± E § \ : E § § f « A = e u O § _ O \ c § 2 G \ \ 0 / o r t L 0 I- o & # « c © o < 't \ ) } ) \ ° ) ! ° ° 3 § [ 4 k x �® . -� u Io g ` } f - a ] CY « •• } \ ) ) \ / \ m t A / \ = < i ce o § v. A % / 0 u m .. G ; {) q . ) CV § k \ \ 0 g -- 2 / { C / \ _ - _ - re z a c $ @ / \ i m _ k i } } } } ® E-124 M cA fflt \ / a> 0 § k ® » # . . � 274 ( ° f k ® ° 6 \ / . f § ) § $ f / } o � i ® ` do 2 < a • k # I c / \ � / } ° : • ía ! . \ E \ / 2« « . ' . § o . , Z / y \ . . : $ 2 : « / f � � Ce o � o � ! . ( 2 / § k cc - 0 \ § § Z I � i2 / » \ § 0 / ( \ k \ \ CL2 � , . 50 t M - . ) Page E-125 • T•-lb�l-.M.a9/s s•4rr^a+�s�1f+�Y'TI°° •♦» �r s]� i J a: ? ..__ s -_ v�xa, 411 CDOT Region 4 @ CDOT R-4 Loveland North 1-25 Front Range EIS 2207 East Highway 402 TAC Meeting Loveland,CO 80537 February 12,2004 (970)667-4670 2:00 PM MEETING MINUTES MEETING TYPE: Technical Advisory Group MEETING DATE: February 12,2004 MEETING LOCATION: CDOT R-4 ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION : ATTENDEES: AFFILIATION : Dan Dennison Mead Mark Peterson Larimer County Rod Wensing Windsor Chants Brockman Windsor John Franklin Johnstown Beth Chase CDOT Deck Leffler Frederick David Klockeman Loveland Dave Lindsay TST/Firestone Dennis Wagner Windsor Mark Jackson City of Ft.Collins Trent Marshall Northglenn • Jeanne Shreve Adams County Michelle Kayln Adams County Larry Ketcham Town of Milliken Jim Sidebottom City of Ft.Lupton Gene Putnam City of Thornton Vicky McLane NFRMPO Frank Hempen Jr. Weld County Public Works Dave Downing City of Westminster Tom Anzia FHU Kim Podnblik PRACO Bob Felsburg FHU Gina McAfee Carter-Burgess Holly Miller FHU PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Holly Miller SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Introductions and Welcome 1. Bob G.— Unfortunate to report that there has been another fatality along 1-25. Reiterating the importance of this effort. Thanks for participating, two lead agencies Jean Wallace with FHWA, John Dow with FTA. Bob read CDOT's environmental ethic. The NEPA process helps with good decision making. Power Point Presentation • J:1032251TAC1MEETING MINUTES\TAC021204.doc Page E-126 s z Li• ._�� 4Pi .x9+ryF.".i2 J f...,u.. Meeting Minutes of February 12,2004 Page 2 2. Tom • Project introduction • Technical Advisory Committee representation, functions, schedule • Project team • Study area • EIS Process • History of Regional Transportation Studies • Other Ongoing Corridor Studies Gina • National Environmental Policy Act • Environmental Consideration • Social Impacts • Economic Impacts • Environmental Impacts • Purpose of scoping Kim • Information Sharing 250 people at recent open houses • Information Gathering • • Targeted Outreach Tom • Input and Discussion Input and Discussion • What is the useful shelf life of this EIS? An EIS left inactive may have a shelf life of 3 years. • How were Northern limits determined? The northern boundary was determined through input from FHWA/FTA. It was based on traffic data and future population and employment. Consideration is still being given to extending the northern terminus to Wellington. This is why the boundary line is fuzzy. • How Multi Modal is this study? The study should include bike, bus, toll, rail, etc. It should tie to US 36 corridor work. Study should coordinate with other corridors. Coordination with other corridors has begun and will continue throughout the study. It will be multi modal considering a variety of travel modes. • Can this be used to facilitate North Metro? This EIS will be coordinated with the North Metro work. The North Metro work is not an EIS following the NEPA process. With Fastracks some corridors would not have Federal participation. This EIS is very unlikely to have different solution than what the North Metro recommends. • This study should facilitate the Highway 85 access corridor plan. • It appears that we continue to study while funding becomes less and less. There are a lot of needs without enough resources. The 1993 EA is still being used. An EIS left inactive may have a shelf life of 3 years. If the document is kept alive it can be much longer. The MPO is considering forming an RTA. No comprehensive plan has yet been completed for North 1-25. • • Is there a difference in south terminus based on modes? Tolling alternatives would need to go south of SH 66. Rail alternatives would extend to Union Station. J:\0322S1TAC\MEETING MINUTES\TACO21204.doc Page E-127 3 , Meeting Minutes of February 12,2004 Page 3 • Why is Diagonal Included? To include the BN rail from Longmont to Boulder. • What is the objective of the eastern boundary? To include the UP rail line and Highway 85 • Would like to see transit down Highway 85. • TAFS had a large study area and it was criticized for being too large to generate accurate forecasts. This effort will include modeling efforts that combine the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range. a. Modeling b. Other evaluation tools c. TDF group formed d. 2 national experts e. Effort up front f. MPO land use model being developed • North boundary terminus may change with freight movement • Goals & Objectives a. Don't forget about movement to the north b. Safety comes first c. Mobility NOT just faster, should have improved safety d. Mix of vehicles on 85 and number of intersection controlled and uncontrolled more intersections • e. Modes k f. Include freight movement considerations g. ITS, auxiliary lanes h. Consider eastern bypass • Make history board studies available • Move meeting to Southwest Weld County Service Complex? • Use electronic format— reduce amount of paper • Would EIS interfere with other improvements? a. Safety improvements can be made Next Meeting TAC Meeting 2"d Thursday of the Month March 11, 2004 Location to be determined • J:103225\1AcWEETING MINUTES\TACO21204.doc Page E-128 F it i ' s -* �, V V u U' A .l. ► ..: 1 . ,:24 ;3 ---O • t 1 q . i ; ,- 3 t! 6 1 cztkv ,--, , n.— , TII CJ -- q (11 -1s R Q ti i ( I i 44co o a 1 i I . a ..'--- : r; \9k cfr, 9 if- I i A o �` 1Oa A N 0 O 1 rd A "' '�} • 4 % is-'.: V ' ' y„ r•I p.�+ 1 i 00 1 3. {A1 4.1-4, : . j .f. ) .. 01: :2 i -t-.c.,: QV 1';', ? §a) ... , .-C" .."."- 1 4 . i 4 _A 1 -.. - .:-t , ,,, , m w g ' I ,,.,,,... . e,..4 --- ,,,,..: ° s �I 3 tte. : ila' d. ;6 ..) ›. 1 r' . To Pt J " ft, q i 2 -, 10 Page E-129 iii % { V&, Y on "I 4 i W it p _ 4ms� W fa .s 7 3 f a i q 04 7gi r4A 44 ti 0 CO bi 'I W � ' X ''' 0 6 . 14. ', 1 114 ii It M 41 r-4� 7 0 gog Iji#: 444 il „In5 X4.844 C� a � o p '5 ZF Page E-130 North 1-25 EIS Project Office 2207 East Highway 402 • Loveland,Colorado 80537 NORTH 12,5 (970)352.5455 EIS (303)779.3384 www.cdot.info/northi25eis information. cooperation. transportation. Loveland Police and Courts Building,810 E.10th Street Technical Advisory Committee March 11,2004 MEETING MINUTES Attendees: See Sign In Sheet Copies: Attendees, Tom Anzia (FHU), Jean Wallace (FHWA), John Dow (FTA), Mike Vanderhoof (FHWA), Bob Garcia (CDOT), File#071609.400 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Dave Martinez (CDOT) started the meeting and welcomed everybody. • 2. Gina McAfee introduced herself and asked people to introduce themselves and name their jurisdiction. 3. Gina said the agenda for the meeting will cover three topics: what we've heard so far(scoping), travel demand forecasting, and input from participants regarding the purpose and need. 4. She mentioned Urban Land Institute (ULI) is sponsoring workshops on TOD. The one for North Front Range will be on June 11, 2004 with TOD. Gina mentioned this would be good to attend. 5. Summary of scoping was reviewed (see attached handout). Dave Krutsinger asked if the pro-rail comments identified corridors. Holly Miller answered "No". 6. Chris Primus described the travel demand forecasting process (see attached handout). 7. A question was asked if we could tell on the origin/destination maps where the most people were destined for. Chris described this using the maps. 8. A question was raised whether or not you could use this information because it is 6 years old? Haven't conditions changed in 6 years? Employment centers have changed. A suggestion was made to do a household survey that would seem more • up-to-date. Federal Highway Administration At Federal Transit Administration i Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-131 North I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES: Technical Advisory Committee March Il,2004 page 2 • 9. Chris mentioned we want to use existing data to be cost effective. 10. A comment was made that if you use household data survey belonging to one jurisdiction it cannot be extrapolated for the entire region. We will also supplement with DRCOG Travel Behavior Inventory data. 11. There was a suggestion to make graphics larger. 12. A comment was made that people divert at Platteville onto Highway 60 and avoid traffic on US 85 in Greeley. There has been a great increase in traffic since Two Rivers Parkway was built. 13. Why are you going from vehicle to person trips? Is needed based on the available information in the regional travel models. 14. Will you use Traffic Analysis (TAZ's) Zones as basis? The answer is yes. Interregional trips are based on a conglomeration of TAZ's. 15. Dave Martinez asked if the Technical Forecasting Working Group agreed with the proposed methodology for this travel demand forecasting. Chris answered "yes". 16. Dave Krutsinger(who participates in the TFWG) said this process is probably the most suited for this project unless we want to wait a couple of years. • ( 17. What do the experts bring to the team? They are also knowledgeable about FTA regulations. They have devoted their careers to developing regional travel models. They have experience at combining regional travel models. 18. Bob Felsburg addressed a question to people who aren't modelers but use the outcome. What is it about the output is most useful to you? • Someone said that some models don't take into account localized access. We should send it to people in local jurisdiction to QC. The person from the local government has a lot of knowledge for modeling. Chris said this is good advice, we will plan on this. • Someone asked if this approach precluded use of a new household travel survey. The NFRMPO completed a survey in 3 months. This was done by ETC out of Kansas but it's from 2002. Bob asked what it cost? It cost$120,000, Vicky from NFRMPO felt its confidence level was high. • We should get traffic count data on other routes (parallel routes) we need to take account impact of our project on these routes. • Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig has done a study, which had recent traffic counts that should be included. • Federal Highway Administration i Federal Transit Administration a Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-132 North I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES: Technical Advisory Committee • March 11,2004 page 3 19. Gina asked for input regarding the purpose and need statement. It will ultimately become Chapter One of EIS. It will set the stage for evaluation criteria. • A comment was made that intermodal relationships needs to look at needs and desires of communities. We need to reflect the need for transit. Bob Felsburg said "relationship" is a federal term. We can include your specific need, such as transit. • Gina paraphrased this as, "a need to examine to multimodal options". • Vicky from NFR said the problem is, "there are no alternatives", which would translate into a need for bus service or other modes. • Expand modes into Denver to along the US 85 corridor. • Transfer commodity movement being moved by truck to rail to save infrastructure, which could be translated to accommodate freight movement of goods. 20. When there is an accident, it locks the roadway up for hours and then there are no alternative routes. Congestion and safety problems occur as result of incidents. • 21. TAFS just looked at north-south maybe we need to include east-west focus. Emphasize east-west mobility. Improvements on east-west roads could alleviate traffic on 1-25. 22. A question was raised, can travel demand modeling model different classification of vehicles? Chris said the DRCOG model includes the effect of truck traffic. 23. Rail crossings have impact on movement of traffic. Model should consider this. 24. Consider ITS as part of alternatives. 25. Someone asked if lateral movements were considered, these could improve alternative routes especially SH 66 (is at capacity). 26. Another suggestion was made that ITS and incident management should be included. Congestion needs to be addressed. 27. Someone asked, how will you account for each community's transportation programs? • They are taken into account in the model. This is also evaluated as part of the No-Action Alternative. • Bob Felsburg noted it may be difficult to draw the line on what to include. • Federal Highway Administration s Federal Transit Administration i Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-133 North I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES: Technical Advisory Committee March 11,2004 page 4 • 28. The NFR is lacking any institutional structure to address transit in the region. We need institutional structure for all transportation needs. 29. There is no RTD. There are a multitude of CDOT organizations in this region. We need more agencies to help meet the jurisdictional transportation need. 30. How is the fiscal reality incorporated into this? Gina said funding availability will be included in the evaluation criteria. The Record of Decision must show that it is fundable, including a financing plan. 31. A question was asked if we would look at the cost of rail and what little impact it actually has. No one is asking if rail would actually be used, we need to ask this. • Gina said this will be addressed. We will ask: How much will transit cost? What is capital cost? What is ridership? 32. A question was raised about land use around interchanges. Will we look at future allowable development at interchanges? • Gina said the model will output what future traffic volumes will be at interchanges but we will not be doing traffic impact analysis at each interchange. • We should look at access as it relates to intersections. • 33. Someone said there is an adopted access plan for US 34. 34. There was a question raised about, if the ROD will indicate what people have wanted all along. Gina said the NEPA process does not make everyone happy. Hopefully people will understand how their input is used. Gina explained how we track comments and how we respond. 35. Will you validate comments comparing vocal minorities to general populace? • Gina said we won't just do public meetings, we try to do outreach at numerous venues to reach all segments of populace. 36. Bob Felsburg asked if safety was an issue? Everyone assumed it was. 37. We need to consider the frontage road system, how it is being used. 38. We need to also consider nearby parallel roads. 39. We need to look at interchange upgrades from safety standpoint. 40. Limit additional interchanges and upgrade existing interchanges. 41. Roads coming into I-25 need to be efficient. • Federal Highway Administration st Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-134 North I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES: Technical Advisory Committee • March 11,2004 page 5 42. Pavement condition needs to be considered, this has an impact on both capacity and safety. 43. Bob asked if everyone understands about supporting communities plans for economic development. • People agreed it should be a need. 44. A comment was made to consider land use. It is a part of synergistic process. 45. Consider safety problems at 1-25 and SH7. • Look at accidents types and rates history. 46. Gina thanked everyone for their input. We'll meet again 2nd Thursday of each month. 47. After meeting, two additional comments were submitted: • Joint utility sleeves are needed across I-25 for communities to share costs. • Presentation material was difficult to read. Gene Putnam volunteered to work • with the team so the style of presentation material can be improved. :\.Transportauon\071609.40D\manage\mtgs\minutes\TAC Meeting_031104.doc • Federal Highway Administration i Federal Transit Administration a Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-135 M✓ NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Meeting April 8, 2004 2 of 5 Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: April 8, 2004 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe MEETING PURPOSE: Monthly Project Update & Review MEETING SUMMARY • Meeting Objectives: 1. Travel Demand Forecasting Update o Gina —Traffic counts taken in February o Discussion continues about preparing a survey o April 2151 is the next Travel Forecasting Group meeting o Provided copies of Existing Commuter Rail Systems Report o Tom —Schedule • General 6 month schedule • Meeting will be held monthly at SW Weld for at least the next year 2. Purpose and Need - Does the group have thoughts on this draft Purpose and Need? o Modal Alternatives and interrelationships important o Vicky M. thought Karla H. had said at a recent meeting that the only reason we cover such a distance east and west is for rail alternatives o Bob F. —Maybe we should add a strong focus to 125 in the project description o Public commentary will be addressed in the document o Are there current plans for improving aging infrastructure? Stan E. said he didn't recall any improvement in the next 6 years included o SH 52- SH 66 improvements should be included in the no action alternative o EIS will not hold up the SH52- SH66 process— lack of funding is holding it up o Focus appears to be north are we going to look south of SH 7 too? o We are discussing our role south of S.H. 7 with EOS and how the different corridor studies will interact • Page E-136 NORTH 1-25 r' wh 'f EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Meeting April 8, 2004 3of5 o Transit alternatives will continue south of S.H. 7 because S.H. 7 is not a logical termini for transit alternatives o Accident data along 1-25 was presented to the group. o We will take into account WHI 3. Goals—Tom o Not support land use plans but perhaps integrate local land use plans or complement local land use plans? o How do we tie goals to the categories of needs in Purpose and Need? o Goals used to guide alternatives not necessarily tied to needs. Bridge from needs to criteria o All needs must be controlled by goals. Can have extra goals o Goal to address interrelationships o Break#3 into 2 goals o Add info on freight movement • 4. Gina —Alternatives Development Document 5. Tom— Initial Alternatives List o Needs = Goals = Alt Screening/Alt Evaluation Action Items: o Add Ron Philips to the RCC List Page E-137 i I I I I i 1 I II o • y v y o J c a L V O 3 .ti a o > ≥ o ml J . ca Q E O p N O y, OI in cn `. E' c' E a u cc 3 o E ac`. a E N H-4 o 3 0 3 E c 2 o 7) o o ° o Zi U N @ O N N > O W @f:4 r3 5 o r 3 . O C3 To c EF c @ ((3 0. O o O O a C ^, @ f3 g@ a O 0 Z .c 'p y > Y y N ° 2 E Y a) O C - O 2 N O O ° a 2 z -oi E 4 -43 F > o O U) Y ( ff `) O c LI c eO 2 C C N m O) 'Cr) N N la W c m a a '^ o N C W C C C eo N C o - N N O N O co o .cC Co m W d. U cl O O I.'. V W C N V a) U W (0 W vai I— .o 3 C a > y c c al aJ 0 1°- F- a_ 2 Q U F- U F- Z • Z Y a) y O C t c m N O Ca c c a o 0 a Q .° o on c z• c Ci N E N a co c N .O N C o lL O O C . N ° (U U• E OTO J o � o w � a w a S - W it CD V Z c `o C E o N E 2 - -0 0 0 0 N W o - o "00 « L 2 LL N J Y --> .c9 W F- U F- Q O -, m Z m 000 < 2 W 2- O W U W O a) <F O c c o W r v zc co "t ° E m >, o c c m c c a) CC N U N /Z� C 0 co o m 3 a E s °� • c z ` V ° ° o Y o 2 o ° o ° s no 'C U — , C Y m 2 co t - El. >. �>, mgc) m Q c Qow Q (n O co O co P- co a o 2 co 3 a) m` = m Q O z 0 2 0 . F- > 0 co Y 2 m -Oi Page E-138 • c o I CD yP i 0 U2 13 > L Q i. _ o Q N t aY 73 N om a >C ° 3 W W o (o cr L E 2 w H W o @ to p s m Z - m 3 ca c +liOilidlii it IIIIII► !l at 'VIIIl ''11111 1110,'. I ,ilil 1+II difll II i► Bill Ill�l • 11 �- I Ill IIPp,, w l`� �II��fIIIN z w „ till , 1I Z m z i III III+II+Ip�'o Iloimillit Ill y o c I oc ( fill 1 11+ +lull Mill IQ rz 0 0 0 ° _ _ _ IS 'III + }i,, Ul U U H O tL LL u_ ti U > ++ LU °( I lllilill lIII+IlIIllllll o W U W >-O r hi co co E 'r O Z Z m y E • gw � v E n v 3 v — m N o m u� Uo Z L v ° W . a`) m C Q tNZN N E m 0 _ 0 N a, U I— 2, = ad (7 W 2,. ' g N Q 2 O --E W 1"-::o, a)a) c s E E a a E > m 0Z1- ¢ WO a in 0 -, -, I m° F°- 0 CD Page E-139 NORTH E� • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportatpn. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: May 13,2004 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: SEE SIGN IN SHEET PREPARER: Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Self Introductions 1)Purpose and Need Review—Gina McAfee The following comments were made on the May 10, 2004 version of the Purpose and Need • document: o Add a description of Western Transportation Trade o Add Weld County Mini Bus info to modal alternative section o Under Project Purpose change Denver to Denver Metropolitan Area o Vicky M. asked if we need to mention air quality in the "needs" section? • Jean W. responded that our needs should be transportation related not air quality, but goals will reflect air quality issues o Vicky M. stated that the area is NOT locally referred to as the North Forty and asked that we take that reference out of the document 2/Public Input Summary—Kim Podobnik Kim provided HIRSYS summary report for review by the TAC. The following comments were made on the summary report: o The term sprawl is negative and does not require the word anti with it. The summary report text will be changed to reflect this comment. o Kim P. stated that she would ask Matt to provide an outline of the guidelines used to categorize comments at next meeting o In the chart, move pro-highway and anti-highway next to each other for a better comparison. o We will have a two-page summary of the categories for the open houses in June. On the TAC Agenda, please change the July 1St open house location on the agenda to Ft Collins. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J.:1032251TACIMEETING MINUTE51TAC-051304.doc Page E-140 NORTH 1-2,5 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee May 13,2004 Page 2 of 5 Kim P. gave an update on the small group activity-About 400 potential groups have been identified. She asked the TAC to let her know if they have any groups we should speak to that have not been identified. Gina M. asked the group what city and county groups should be identified for future presentations—TACs, City Councils, or Board of Commissioners, etc. o Loveland study sessions are full—we will have to wait 3 to 4 months to get on the agenda. The EIS team should start planning now to get on the agenda. o Bob F. asked the TAC members to identify appropriate groups and get that info to Kim P. 3/Alternatives Screening Process—Gina McAfee Three levels of screening are planned. The three levels are: 1) Initial Screening 2)Comparative Screening and 3) Detailed Screening. At each level of screening the alternatives will be evaluated on how well they meet Purpose & Need,their environmental impacts and the ability to implement them. The following comments were made: • o Add safety criteria to Level 3 o Add air quality criteria to the Level 2 Comparative Screening o The Team will look at criteria/goals again and bring them back next time. This will include a discussion on the pros and cons of weighing the criteria and short definitions of each of the criteria. o Add "Transportation"to Purpose and Need Level 3 criteria -instead of saying "existing plans" it will read "Existing Transportation Plans." 4l Initia/Alternatives Information—Gina McAfee o A TAC member stated that it is important to look at north/south corridors as well as east west corridors for all alternatives. o In California super low emission vehicles can use HOV lanes (Urban Transportation Monitor). This could be used as a management strategy if HOV lanes are identified as a potential solution. 5/Transit Alternatives—Craig Gaskill o Craig G. provided a handout comparing some potential transit technologies. o A display illustrated general alignments being considered for different transit technologies. o Fort Collins will provide their Transit Master Plan information for inclusion on the transit alignments drawing. o Article in May 13 Reporter-Herald discussed the possibility of Transfort operating Loveland's bus system to improve efficiency and reduce cost. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • 1:1032251TAQMEET/NG MINUTESITAC.051304.doc Page E-141 NORTH I-25 • EIS a. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee May 13,2004 Page 3 of 5 Attachments.- • Meeting Sign In Sheet • Bus Transit Technologies—Oated 5/13/04 • Public Comment Report from HIRSYS—dated 5/6/04 Action Items: o Matt to provide guidelines for Public Comments o Add Ft. Collins Transit Plan to Transit Alignments drawings Next Meeting: June 10, 2004 2:00 pm SW Weld County Services Complex c � Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:1032251TACIMEETING MINUTESTAC-051304.doc Page E-142 I I I ---1-.---1-------1--i 1 t j .. I _ - • ti Qom) VAI T1>%. _Y:.dry r\I t! o w IL n 0 co o r d to Ck Ql O O N O co LO O O O co C') O O Q) O N Cj 4 O CJ) 1- d- N- CO 1- M Cc CS) M d' Co C. () N '�7 O M N. N CX) CD C4 r7 Q) N. N. CD N *- O q. O - d' CO �f CO s- N <D,th O CD .--- N LC) N _ C i 6 , r A 6 i Q N 1Of) N. C) d' ON n CEO 0)) C)) Lo ^O N LLI) CD O In O Qb N. C''�) I. CC) co C D d Co N N C'V) Q) N. M Co CD C*) O cb C'7 O C'r) Cj M C) CD CD El Cr) CD CO Cr) C7 CD C'7 C D U O C) O 0) O O 0) 0) O O C) O O N. 0) CD N. • CO cr) C') C3) M M [3] 07 M C'7 6) Cr) M CT) O) C C7) 0 I . .1.----. fl O C-bg - 0 1 C U CO V7 ) a) co y� . CU 4 = a O Q u L? H- o D El? Q Cr CC Q) C ou •4...., ti m O C7 CD 0 p] 0 • u- O V cc cc o T L_ Q O N O t CD CD eo U F- U U CO U b O N + o o U 0. CO Cu E N se w — o CO E (3) C c" rn co a) a) sD sDc o 0. o C o .E o t 'n a) Jo •C C < e m a M E -o C O a CO Ca '5 Q o ca en E _co c) C`Dc_D C) c Ci c O = CCO Y O� U Y [L c m m t-0 c0 C 7 m r • N N m N LL L a Q al tU NI U Z. Q L o ti Page E-143 • 2 ka. \ : ' \ t P ® � / / } % To k f CZI nzt CNI CO LO CV C.9 CI? _ ..9. K.( C) = CO _ _ _ O) _ ) w • ! $ \ f En- ) & w 11 \ = H » \ aL. \ a CD F ) \ k ° \ CO\ \ \ \ cc cc k \ / - \ \ \ I— I } ) f \ , CI 6 ) / \ > 6ca o § -al co tl \ j ; 0 \ CC ccj \ - — , t 1E \ ( Cn_ / /) J ) \ \ / -, •/ / { / \ \ \ \ e ° tea / Page E-144 NORTH 123 . , _ ._.:. . • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: June 10, 2004 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. General Discussion Self Introductions • The meeting start time was moved up to 1:30pm May minutes reviewed Tony Ogboli of the City and County of Denver requested a copy of the May Minutes 2. Purpose and Need Updates Review of Purpose and Need updates Review of RCC's suggested restructuring of the Purpose and Need —The Needs will be reordered as follows: safety, capacity, aging infrastructure, modal alternatives and economic demands. This text will continue to change and expand and will become Chapter 1 of the EIS. Review of Project Goals and the RCC; suggestion to reduce the number of goals to four primary goals. TAC suggested removing "and environment"from the last goal and adding enhance to the first goal. The group also suggested adding an introduction to the list of goals that states that the needs identified in Purpose and Need identify the primary project goals and that the goals identified in this list are in addition to the Purpose and Need. There was additional discussion about combining goals 2 & 3. The project team will work on updating the Purpose and Need and the project goals to address the comments heard at both the RCC and TAC meetings. 3. Alternatives Screening Update • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation 1:103225105. TAC12004 thru 200612004 MEETING MINUTES1 WORD DOCUMEN7S1TAC-061004.doc Page E-145 NORTH 1-25 fr--T EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee June 10,2004 Page 2 of 5 Heavy Rail does not provide improvement over commuter rail—technology not appropriate for this corridor. By electrifying and using commuter you will get a better system. The group discussed dropping all heavy rail alternatives. They suggested screening this technology. High Speed Rail (79 -125 MPH) requires long distanced between stops - 10 miles between stops. Personal Rapid Transit will be added to the list of alternatives but will be screened because of its impracticability. TAC asked if magnetic(IVHS)will be looked at. It would not likely pass practicability. It is an innovative technology being developed in San Diego. 4. Public Involvement Kim P. provided an update on the newsletter, activities planned and done to date, and what public meetings are coming up in June and early July. Attachments: • Agenda Draft Evaluation Criteria Matrix—5/27/04 Draft Purpose and Need—6/8/04 Draft Project Goals on Power Point Slide—6/10/04 Level One Alternatives Screening—6/10/04 TAC Member Directory—6/9/04 Action Items: Send CCD a copy of the May meeting minutes Bring copies of Transit Map for TAC Send Wendi Palmer, Town of Erie Notebook Send Michele Kayen packet from May TAC meeting Next Meeting: July 8, 2004 1:30 PM • SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J.103225105.Tit 012004 thru 200612004 MEETING MINUTESIWORD DOCUMENTSITAC-06I004.doc Page E-146 (..k.?�'' I I ..I- _-� - - . � .-.- - ! i I I taLo r� W ,•� g c 0 N g F. CD a; a m 0. zO a g E E W3 Cu a E 3 O 0 d C 0 n 0 c d o n c o e4 m O `R° t n Ca o°_ o Fr Q. c 0 • W Wo ~ ti) N a y C g a) F o . //�� 6 o V >, c w t_ c C a) 'O c O U "' 3 a U C C + yC c E o _moo ° Or. m O c - 'a) o 0 o 0 cc U w o Ea ' ≥ > L E E W c U i 'c c O O r 2 N v- .- Ur L N N c C 0 m m J —1 J Z c ,� J N Ili O O O O O 4604... 3 O `O e U Q Q CO O❑ U U U U U U U 1' ~ o H ogP U U U !- e 3 b ts d a b - d a E Q o E z e O 0 o U c N o >+ a) y Cu y L E N I6 al 73— Cu OE a) p 'C a ->o "Cr Cu N Cu az = - = O Y 3 >. c �i Q N N U I - O CID O CL p d -2 F-- Cu e 0 10 �C rj c LL �. �° oM ca L c -0 N s y Y -E C 7 `o a3 c c o E r Z L a3 O O c c c L o LI F '� d 2 0 H C7 ❑ o S Page E-147 d , . — 2 --g - - � , \- - - r . , — r---- — - y: ' i [ :/ ' �� a d E e ° \ k E \ 2 'ct/ o \ a \ 141 c a-FD 2 \ / f \ k Z. \ k Q. ( { ) § CO .4" > g f § ) G \ g a m § 7 tc o ) . c & \ ` k j ) \ $ / / / i 2 2 { e { § \ § \ » E % E ± » G \ e ) P # m 2 E / / / # o * % » % \ \ E ® % ® ® 0 t w ® j / » G f / / \ Q CD / \ k § 2 \ $ 5 e ® e / $ 2 \I ( % \ \ Et ) } O c § 0 0 § f % 0 o 0 c E ) ` W Co\ } 0 2 co § L. 2 ) " C / k 3 / ■ ] ) }m t } / 7 , \ / g # 3 f 7 § } \ / § k 5 / ) 2 } \ § { } ! \ / b L. ) « » _ ( \ \ } \ } c 2 co 2 \ = / p ] / / § j 2 ) ) �4 Page 8 . . . . . . ; ; I \ I � \ -- \ I I y , in 3 7 g Q ` \ ) \ 6 cri ) 2 13 7 co 0 \ § \ k \ 7 f 4 g \ > / ° \ § \ k L. \ 2 ) Q3 Ill \ § \ ) k k E / / G \ / f g § c & : k m a = Ei ) e < = k § e G 6 2 a 2 % / ± i E \ k / § E ° k - { a e ce e § 2 k ( ) R ® j o \ CO 2 ® 3 # \ \ } \ O 7 } § 2 / § P CC / ) J ® // _ co° iH ! UHIIH ! fl o.k � - «% . ] \ % / T = 0 E ) / ) \ 3 CO \ } g. trs / ) / / Page E-149 E • NoRrx I-25 Meeting Minutes EIS ^' information. cooperation transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: July 8, 2004 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Complex ATTENDEES: Adams County: Michele Kayen, Jeanne Shrene Broomfield: Tonya Haas City of Loveland: Dave Klockeman City of Thornton: Gene Putnam Town of Frederick: Richard Leffler Town of Mead: Dan Dennison Town of Erie: Gary Behlen City of Fort Collins: Mark Jackson City of Fort Lupton: Jim Sidebottom City of Greeley: William Andrews DRCOG: Jennifer Edwards NFRMPO: Vicky McLane RTD: David Kutsinger CDOT: Stan Elmquist C&B: ZafarAlikhan, Gina McAfee • PREPARER: Carte r'8urgess Gina McAfee COPIES: TAC members, Bob Felsburg, Dave Beckhouse, Jean Wallace, Holly Miller, Becky Noe, Craig Gaskill, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Tom welcomed everyone.The majority of our time is to follow up on the No-Action Alternative and project goals. 2. Any comments on the June minutes? No. 3. The upcoming schedule will include monthly TAC meetings,bi-monthly RCC meetings,development of Level 2 alternatives and screening of those,two rounds of public meetings(one in the fall and the second one in January 2005). 4. Level 1 screening follow-up:in response to a TAC comment,we evaluated PRT and then recommended that it would be dropped. For heavy rail,we have not carried it forward.For high-speed rail,we will develop an alternative to present to the public at the fall meeting. Commuter rail includes DMUs and traditional locomotive. We should obtain information from Tri-Rail on their side-hy-side comparison.We should also have written material about the different technologies. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-150 • NORTH 125 • EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 8,2004 2of5 5. Will we do a summary chart on Level 1 documenting why a certain alternative failed?That would be useful if people call with questions. Yes,we will do that. 6. Kim indicated that we have received an additional 600 comments.People liked the presentation style at the meetings.We are planning to change the timeframe from 4:30pm to 7:30pm.We should plan to focus not just on what has been dismissed, but also on what is still being carried forward. Dave asked if the news clippings could be provided to TAC members.Kim said she will send these out. There were comments about a "super slab"alternative.We will evaluate this in the context of how it responds to purpose and need.This EIS will not be extended to go to Pueblo. We should tie in traffic growth on a particular segment with the number of accidents,to add some context • 7. We have been doing some additional analysis about the southern terminus. For BRT, HOV,or express toll lanes, we will extend the southern termini to DUS.Gene pointed out that COOT is requiring a large enough template south of SH 7 to include a future HOV lane. 8. For the No-Action Alternatives,the improvements we are allowed to include are the existing+committed projects only.We have collected information from most of the cities about known programmed improvements (see packets).We will use these as the "baseline"to compare build alternatives against.We do not have a complete list yet. Commerce City has a change: 120'"should be widened from Holly to Quebec. What about 1-25? For the STIP,the six laning from SH 7 up to one mile north of 52 should be included.Funding up to SH 66 is committed in the seventh Pot and was a part of the bond issue that passed. It should probably be a part of the No-Action Alternative.(This would be similar to the situation if FasTracks passes.) We will confirm this with FHWA and FTA. On US 287,it is on the fiscally constrained RTP but there is no funding for construction. For 112'"overpass,this has been open to the public awhile. 136'and interchange and widening of 136"will be open to the public very soon—July 21. Holly Street widening will be open in April,2005.The Thornton Parkway will open next month. Washington from 136th to 152"d will be ready for construction soon. What about US 34 business?It is closer to getting funded than 402. • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration 1 Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-151 NOKIH 1-25 • EIS L. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July 8,2004 3 64 SH 7(1-25 east to south of 164th Avenue)will be widened to two lanes each direction with left-and right-turn lanes—by June 30,2005(will be open that date). Fort Collins has a ballot issue that includes some capital projects.When the list gets finalized,Mark will send it to us. Improving Colorado Boulevard from the south county line to north of 52 is on Weld County's list.Weld County is also doing SH 7. 9. Regarding the travel forecasting effort,we are collecting information from the census regarding work travel patterns.We also are collecting information from the NH household survey and COG's roadside survey.We will present this at one of the next two TAC meetings. 10. Project goals: We have received comments from the committees and agencies about goals.There were several goals that seemed like statements of purpose and need instead,so we reworded those.The remaining E "additional"goals are now recommended.The term"additional" is confusing to people—these are additional • to the purpose and need and not additional to other goals we had considered earlier. We should not call purpose and need "goals-" We should modify the final goal to read: "Protect the quality of life of the citizens of Colorado." The goals are, in essence,tiebreakers,which can be used to help select a Preferred Alternative. How do we measure quality of life?There is a lot in the summary of comments about quality of life.We also will solicit input at the small group meetings and at the fall public meeting about this. Why do we even have project goals?The first two seem to be evaluation criteria,and the third is too nebulous. Do we need project goals? If we do not have an environmental-related goal,it may be harder to justify to one of the federal resource agencies why we cannot impact a resource that is protected by another federal resource agency. FTA more typically includes project goals in their documents.Should this be project vision instead?Or should we roll these into a project mission statement and then follow this with the statement of purpose and need? 11. We need to provide the TAC with the most current purpose and need statement. 12. Where does the word "practicability" come from? It is in the Clean Water Act 13. What does"level of safety service"mean? 14. We should have a definition of terms when we use these words—and have a definition of technology terms too • (like BRT). Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-152 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting July B,2004 4of5 15. The TAC would prefer to have the comments presented at 81z"x 11"—remove the names. Electronic versions are preferred. • • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-153 — � ill q � • _ § / \ co co 6 \ \ / { E ! ! } » Z 6 9 { \ \ k & ( % ill k C RR \ ) \ � — k { \ _ ) \ / co 2 _ / / \ \ k - E.I® To T ) $ a z 0 - ° \ y ° \ § = / 2 \ / 503 \ \ 2 / { / O } \ CO" 2 TZt 7 2 o / \ / O O / o / \ ) \ \ ) LI G U ' ^ ( \ i 4 \ \ ` { et Ca lii ) & \ / 2 h _o. § \LII / \ \ \ cc ci) \ \ k / * \ \ / } ' CoC ° _ \ \ } s o 2 & » ® _ ° 2 } e ag § Page E-154 Y:. • LI=L n 4 , �T� O h�'4 M�+1 j` 0 b 4-4 Q E -o a U (t 17 O y O I C O O ., i 1 e Q ' •..... n m s r.c� I • H s J Iq I _ U a.) &) c .- -o = v F. C @ 4) N a C c +-.� ' O C QJ U C p _ I_ p C O Y 1� N '� 03 CO v J a°Ji c �o Q _ CU CL, E w o v J w m n f� Q o v v v J ~ o 0 . Zi e QS 1\9-27z E. , k1,1 E a c c >.. c E 7=3 2 =- a> `m cp CD p — h q o ,_ 3, Cl> La La 13 > al E b aci 2 7 ` t-� C� CD Q W ci 77 z d U Cn L N O C e' • - o c O �-- a as Y •- E — O c Y x c: oTo N c c c m > CC- cn ca a) x -a a E_ >. L., c a) Q � p Q L7 CID se n = 7 C/J J `�' La oc co na _ z a Cl.) Page E-155 4O 1777 N cn V N W . O Nu> cri ci z a c Q CO d U O to W p ..i a.>l � H � $1 i Co R ci ' C u a v Q Ctl O U Q.1 `, U ( r • 0 P.. . CC I > C C a' Le N 0 . . ... l� �' • OO = m c o c a '� •ro U 2 2 m o F- ?j 0 V U cr K. N li u- ..- � o O LL CC a N al F- m Q 2 ''‘..1 U ` 4 U 1 aDO 6 1 42s H E t 1' V a a) m °> >e m m — " K U o N N .D .UE to C N N O ,J N ?. ¢ ski N cu Z c E a co w m _ '- 2 E m O f° o m w • l 'c O LL [J' ]G �J -D C T-- a) _ 9 1J\ Page E-156 '4 s NoR1 I I I-25 :.a • EIS MEETING MINUTES information, cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: August 12, 2004 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Comments on July Meeting Minutes • No comments on the minutes 2. Purpose and Need Update • The Economic Growth section has been updated to reflect comments made by the TAC and the COE. • The freight/commodity movement write up was moved from the Modal Altematives • section to the Economic Growth section. • Gene P. stated that he felt that DRCOG's latest 2030 population and employment data does not reflect what is actually occurring Thomton. • Common development standards may never be achieved but some TAC members felt that the last statement in the Economic Growth section was too negative. There are efforts by the cities underway to preserve ROW. The cities signed agreement to this effect. The 1-25 regional corridor plan was an effort to improve the coordination. Larimer County Urban Area Street standards would include develop by the interstate. The TAC agreed that the concept of having a plan that was coordinated and consistent between all the stakeholders would be beneficial. The team will rephrase the wording to have a more positive spin. 3. Travel Model Update • The adopted regional models with their associated land use assumptions are used in the EIS process. Communities need to review land use with their MPO and resolve any concerns about land use at that level. DRCOG is currently in the process of making updates to the 2030 population and employment projections. The modeling group hopes to have a summary of existing travel patterns to review with the TAC at the September meeting. They will continue to utilize the existing data to calibrate the model and hope to have a 2030 no action model ready for review at the October TAC meeting. 4. No Action Alternative Definition • The TAC had a discussion about what portions of FasTracks would be included in the No Action Alternative. It was thought that if FasTracks passes, corridors that would be locally funded would be included and those that would require federal • funding and do not yet have their environmental clearances would not be included. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 1-103225101 TAC12004 Pon,200612004 MEETING MIM?ES108-12-0MITAC-081204.doc Page E-157 NORTH I-25 4v {r EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee August 12,2004 Page 2 of 6 (Since this meeting, FHWA and FTA have agreed that if FasTracks passes the US 36 corridor and the North Metro corridor can be included in the No Action alternative.) • The figure and list of No Action improvements handed out only reflect improvements included in the no action network.model. Other short-term improvements such as the median barrier safety project along 1-25 are included in the overall no action definition but are not included on this list. • Chris P. provided an update on efforts being conducted on the No Action network. 5. Level 2 Alternatives Development and Screening Process • Step 1 is to provide more information on alternatives to the public in October. • Some of the level 2 alternatives will be considered stand alone and some complementary. Stand alone alternatives are those that are qualitatively identified as adequately addressing the study's Purpose and Need. • Beyond 50-year horizon planning efforts are being discussed with FHWA. This could help with looking at the bigger picture. • A reasonable range of alternatives will be developed and screened. The team will solicit public input in February on the preliminary alternatives screening results. Action Items: • • Add SH 7 improvement between 1-25 and 164th Avenue to map and list • Update Adams County projects • Add Denver to the Quebec improvements identified as Commerce City. Next Meeting: September 9, 2004 1:30 PM SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • ✓:103225105.TAC12004 thru 200612004 MEETING MINUTES108-12-041TAC-081204.doe Page E-158 . : � . . . . y . § , § . . . ! Mil I I , I i .\ j in m I \ E k , ,o k } 9 \ \ ) \ / c ) / . } \ § 2 w / ai f } 2 E \ { E ° ! ! ] & e m a> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ E O k / \ ) ) \ $ ) ) k / E ) { t ] E { o ( ) ) } } / k C 3 Q § / 2 A # e ) 3 , e E f e { a ■ k 9 / > \ / - \ W •2 o � a a > co 2 » « » ) )c q / 1.1 E k , } § � \ . ) C c ■ / 2 / [ \ \ C } E , ''S9 , § \ / / o o a ) / e 3 { ; _ % r t _ E o O ® ) § k } } } \ / \ 0 . 9 o 2 / c / 2 r \ ' o o H o H 0 0 0 0 Woo 00 e o I H ! } } a § G i i { ! i k 0m 2 - Et ( ® q & k a. k 2 E ] § _a / § {a § $ : c_ coco � § � \ -co d } \ ) S ] ( *O ( � « f / n / / E \ $ $ G > G 6 5 a , 0 9 « CO 1.12 _ ` = E k 7 k = 2 f : 5 c 2 % & o ) / J § a CO a 0 « ) 0 w o o o 4 < < j / ) Page E-159 ©2a « � i r — y—a�w�cw— . . -- . . . , T i I ; I r , , I r I I \ � ,i • / E j S O ( { ; [ w \ } \ - \ 8 O / } f 7 ; # § t \ \ ) 0 } \ = O 5 - L. \ r E t / \ 0 / { \ \ c } \ / \ \ ) \ \ / k } \ 7 \ ■ = a g r / ) \ 3 j { \ f 3 E ! \ ` I 7 » f u \ E E E 2 2 3 3 e { E ( -) } } ) \ » ) \ § I k U. 0 I » » a « « » ^ ) } 3 Ho m \ C ( / � ® 3 » .7. - ® 4 \ \ j -0 / / - } 0 as 0 9 { \ ( o \ \ { •) 4 ue up m o_ \ } a \ \ ) 0 \ \ R \ a \ / } a \ a e oo = / e / 0 2 a o \ e e o O z ( e / / ) ] f § f { « # ! t { ) -Ti: 0 2 8 ) 2 ) 2 § « ) lq a s a L. 0. L. a ) ! - ! o \a 1 c = E E E t _ e. ) \ , } G E \ ; ) c 2 4 ( 0 { ® ( § � � § \ 23) \ $ { ) \ ) ) ) # f ] \ ) / { / © , _ _ / 7 « « { \ ! 2 c , c e. /f 2 - \ a \ « / ] = a 0 k ) O / } \ / } } on @ �,e . , . . w . § � I I I F I \ ) I I ' \ I \ i ' / 0 tr) Ch i _ q H / j / § 2 = / \ 2 § ; / § ) ! $ ° 5 ) § E / # ) E 5 — — E ( % = j \ / / •/ / 0 ) ) CU { a _ _ ¢ $ } « / \ ` E % / ] / @ \ 6 % \ c - • - ] O.5 § § , % • ) } # g / c % $ \ Z H f a a \ 2 \ \ co { CO) { j ) } » k 0 & I 761 c) oo / \ « a > » > 7 7 \ -13 tt C 0 0 \ » / » § ± §48 } » \ E toe) §o / = R e = 13 _ § § - - ! $ 2 » e f Co * 0 c J / 0 G j ± ) < a) e : $ ) \ % a 7 3 > 7 t y t t / * / 6 } \ k co \ / * / co \ § 45 ( \ \ \ f m * e e ) e 2 8 o Q e e 0 e e e / e } \ t § § af { 7 i •! C ! ! C @ 2 | | § ti ( ® « L. a L. a » E 6 { ` , E / � ! # a) _ c § ) f \ § 2 $ § . / 2 « { _ _ , c - � ) \ ) i k = _ ) * ` ` ` \ co co WI B \ { k ° \ \ ) ` \ \ \ o } \ J 1 0 CO / \ \ \ $ co \ \ E < \ / ) \ \ ) j gePa E-161 ; -. a> : a— . i ::.,;:."-e �. . .. -r - y \ , q ill V) Q / ca z J Cl 2 ; g ; -c \ cl oi ( \ % } { { ? / a e e / ) \ } \ ) w / \ } \ co ( \ k CI C0) ± _6 - a ) a -o \ . \ ( ® ` - 0 a H j \ ! a / } _ T. •o \ ° c co co a ) \ 0 0 } / 2 0 H 0 \ ) 0 ± \ } e o 0 a 0 0 0 w 0 0 u & \ a \ ( \ § C z § z § C § ; C 7 ! $° § e ; E ; 2 2 $ § § _ ) L. a_ ( a « a. a ( ! { { a. 1/40 k§ 2 : ) k / / ) § % 11 2c‘i 8 \ { \ / \ $ \ \ ) / } TA E m _ ) / z O \ } J } 0 ) ) ) ] ) } ) Page E-162 NIORIH I L5 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: September 9,2004 LOCATION: SW Weld County Building ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions Z Peggy C. Presentation • It is a feasibility study not a proposal for tolling implementation • North 1-25 from US 36 to SH 66 is being reviewed for its tolling feasibility. It includes three sections: Converting the existing HOV lanes from 70th to 84th to HOT lanes Adding a two-lane reversible section from 84th to 120th Avenue • Adding four toll expressway lanes from 120th Avenue to SH 66 • Results indicate that the 1-25 segment would be feasible. • It is important to look at the system as a whole and not look at the corridors individually. • If implemented, the technology used would be compatible with the other tolling facilities in the region providing a seamless trip to motorists using more than one tolled facility. • Some toll surveys have indicated a negative response but others have indicated a very positive response 3. Review August Meeting Minutes • No comments on the August minutes 4. RCC Update • Vango routes have been recently added. The Purpose and Need will be updated to reflect this increase. • The RCC requested that the Purpose and Need also include information on the safety concerns associated with motorists on 1-25 cutting over the shoulder median to reach the Frontage Roads when there is congestion on 1-25. 5. Public Involvement Update • Public meetings will be held October 19th, 21st, 26th and 28th • Text for the E-Link newsletter will be sent out early next week • A mailed newsletter will also be sent out soon • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TAC2004!Arm 200612004 MEETING MINUTE5109-09-041TAC-09904.doc Page E-163 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee September 9,2004 Page 2 of 8 • As part of another project now under construction, the "Downtown Express Lanes", the existing reversible bus/HOV lanes, are being converted to a HOT lane operation • Since the HOT(and bus/HOV) lanes operate like a pipeline, the traffic capacity constraints at their south end near 20`"Street are a significant operational problem • Potential solutions include reconfiguration of the ramps at the Speer Blvd interchange, constructing a new collector-distributor(C-D) road system, a tunnel from southbound (SB) I-25 to SB Speer, a flyover ramp from SB 1-25 to a C-D road to a signal on Speer, and extending the HOT lanes south to 6th Avenue • No studies have considered any changes from the existing 2-lane reversible operation, although the current 50-50 directional split disallows further extension of the reversible concept • The issues of how buses can make return PM trips to Boulder on US 36, or SB I- 25 north of Speer during the PM have been raised, but not yet addressed • How the cumulative effects of the potential multiple bus/HOV streams of traffic from North 1-25, US 36, 1-70 East, and 1-76(a "Perfect Storm" analogy)will likely have to be addressed by top level agency staff t 4. Summary of Public Comments Received • • Kim Podobnik distributed and briefly summarized the over-400 comments received at 18 small group meetings, six special events, and four public meetings held since July • The handout cuts off some of the longer comments, and that will be fixed. • More specific categorization of comments was requested. That will be done and the results posted on the project website. 5. Stakeholder Interviews— Congestion Management Alternative • Julie Morrison distributed and briefly summarized the interviews that she and Zafar Alikan conducted with representatives from four cities, two counties, and the NFR MPO. • TAC members requested that Thomton, Adams County, and RTD in Denver also be interviewed • Julie also distributed a 2-page draft outline of the Congestion Management Alternative's purpose, role in the EIS, and strategies under consideration; and requested review and comments on it from the TAC 6. Level 2A Analysis process • Tom Anzia briefly informed the TAC that validation of the travel model, highway and transit projections, will delay the near-term project schedule by 2-4 weeks • Results of the "Off-Model" 2A analyses, with recommended screening out of alternatives using data on Purpose& Need, Environment, and Practicability, will be presented for Transit at the next TAC meeting. Highway recommendations will be Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:1o3d751TAOMEETINC MINtTE5111.18-041TAC-111804.dor Page E-164 YJ NORTH 1-25 ; • EISI R, MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation, Technical Advisory Committee September 9, 2004 Page 3of8 presented in January, and then the travel model results and information for the next public meetings at the February TAC meeting. Action Items: In response to a question on the possibility of rail lines being moved out of the Central Platte Valley, Tom Anzia will investigate and report on the status of the Rail Freight Relocation Study Next Meeting: I December 9, 2004 1:30 to 3:30 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:I031751TACMEETING MINUTESI1-18-041TAG I i180J.doc Page E-165 NORTH 1-25 EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation_ transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: November 18, 2004 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Self Introductions 2. Comments on October Meeting Minutes • No comments 3. Presentation on status of the Downtown Denver Multimodal Access Plan • (DMAP) • Mark Najarian presented the status of Denver's DMAP, which is focusing on elements needed to implement FasTracks in and around Downtown. • Before FasTracks begins operation in 2013, a second circulator along 18`h and 19th Streets and Lincoln/Broadway is now proposed to supplement the 16th Street Mall shuttle • FasTracks will cover the cost of the buses for the new circulator, but not for the buses that will run along other regional corridors destined for Market Street and Civic Center Stations • In a previous study, the "Central Connector" from I-25/Broadway to Civic Center Station was recommended as a BRT operation, but that decision was then deferred to DMAP • A bus facility at Union Station is not included in FasTracks, so there will still be many buses using Market Street or Civic Center Stations • The DMAP schedule calls for preliminary plan recommendation in March for approval by the RTD Board, Denver City Council, and CDOT Transportation Commission 4. Presentation on status of 1-25 Central Corridor Study • Myron Swisher, CDOT Region 6, presented the $200,000 pre-NEPA engineering feasibility study of 1-25 between 38th/Park Avenue and the 6th Avenue interchanges • Like DMAP, this informal analysis will address access to and from Downtown Denver Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • b0312STA( MEETING MINUTESII/-18-0417AC-111804.doo Page E-166 NORTH 1-25 S EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee September 9, 2004 Page 2 of 8 • As part of another project now under construction, the "Downtown Express Lanes", the existing reversible bus/HOV lanes, are being converted to a HOT lane operation • Since the HOT (and bus/HOV) lanes operate like a pipeline, the traffic capacity constraints at their south end near 20th Street are a significant operational problem • Potential solutions include reconfiguration of the ramps at the Speer Blvd interchange, constructing a new collector-distributor(C-D) road system, a tunnel from southbound (SB) I-25 to SB Speer, a flyover ramp from SB 1-25 to a C-D road to a signal on Speer, and extending the HOT lanes south to 61h Avenue • No studies have considered any changes from the existing 2-lane reversible operation, although the current 50-50 directional split disallows further extension of the reversible concept • The issues of how buses can make return PM trips to Boulder on US 36, or SB 1- 25 north of Speer during the PM have been raised, but not yet addressed • How the cumulative effects of the potential multiple bus/HOV streams of traffic from North 1-25, US 36, 1-70 East, and 1-76 (a "Perfect Storm" analogy)will likely have to be addressed by top level agency staff • 4. Summary of Public Comments Received • Kim Podobnik distributed and briefly summarized the over-400 comments received at 18 small group meetings, six special events, and four public meetings held since July • The handout cuts off some of the longer comments, and that will be fixed. • More specific categorization of comments was requested. That will be done and the results posted on the project website. 5. Stakeholder Interviews - Congestion Management Alternative • Julie Morrison distributed and briefly summarized the interviews that she and Zafar Alikan conducted with representatives from four cities, two counties, and the NFR MPO. • TAC members requested that Thornton, Adams County, and RTD in Denver also be interviewed • Julie also distributed a 2-page draft outline of the Congestion Management Alternative's purpose, role in the EIS, and strategies under consideration; and requested review and comments on it from the TAC 6. Level 2A Analysis process • Tom Anzia briefly informed the TAC that validation of the travel model, highway and transit projections, will delay the near-term project schedule by 2-4 weeks • Results of the "Off-Model" 2A analyses, with recommended screening out of alternatives using data on Purpose & Need, Environment, and Practicability, will be presented for Transit at the next TAC meeting. Highway recommendations will be • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 1032251TACIMFFTING MINUTES11-18-04,TAC-111804.doe Page E-167 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee September 9,2004 Page 3 of 8 presented in January, and then the travel model results and information for the next public meetings at the February TAC meeting. Action Items: In response to a question on the possibility of rail lines being moved out of the Central Platte Valley, Tom Anzia will investigate and report on the status of the Rail Freight Relocation Study Next Meeting: December 9, 2004 1:30 to 3:30 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J103225TAC MEETING MINOTEY11-18-047AC-I1I804.doc Page E-168 NORTH 125W 'a- EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: December 9, 2004 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on November Meeting Minutes • No comments on the November minutes • 3. Travel Time Surveys • Holly M. presented the AM and PM peak hour travel speeds. • End points for the various highways studied will be added to the maps. • Questions to be researched: how can the segment speeds shown that are all below the posted speed limits be reconciled with public comments received that speeds are now too high and sped limits should be lowered? This question would be more appropriately addressed through a speed study. • Are the times shown affected by construction zones on the roads during the survey? • Why is US 85 shown as only 52-54 MPH when the speed limit is 65? The speed shown is the average travel speed over the entire corridor. • Will 20-year predicted future speeds be provided? (Yes) 4. Existing Interchange Operation • Members were asked to review and comment within the next month on traffic counts for all of the movements at 18 interchanges along 1-25. • The daily counts were taken over a 2-week period in September 2004. 5. Highway Design Criteria • Holly M. called attention to the 3-page table in the meeting package and said that after the meeting Michelle S. could answer any questions members might have. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TA 012004 thru 2 00 612 00 4 MEETING M/NUTES1 t 2-09-041TAC-120904.doc Page E-169 NORTH 1-25 r 1 EIS :=::, .. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Technical Advisory Committee December 9, 2004 Page 2 of 8 6. Preliminary Level 2A Transit Evaluation • Craig Gaskill outlined the evaluation process, which is based on three types of criteria: Purpose & Need (which is still under review by the Army Corps of Engineers), Practicability, and Environmental Resources. • Ratings of A through E were assigned to each alternative according to each of 32 criteria. An E rating is not a fatal flaw. Some E's may change as alternatives are refined and more information is developed. • Only Stand-Alone alternatives are being evaluated in Level 2A, those which substantially meet the project's purpose and need. • This process has led to the recommendation to advance six transit alternatives. • Julie M. presented (1) the "Methodology" memo, which covers how letter grades were determined and also lists the advantages and disadvantages of the six transit alternatives that are now recommended to advance into Level 2B screening; and (2) the one-page table of Draft screening results. • There is no weighting of factors, but some criteria are not as significant as others. • For example, there is no reason to recommend building something that has fewer environmental impacts if it does not grade well under purpose and need criteria. • Some criteria, such as Modal Options, Air Quality, and Hazardous Materials, graded all of the transit alternatives the same. • • All alternatives have been evaluated at a macro scale. For example, Commuter • Rail alignments assumed a width of 1,000 feet, sufficient to learn what resources may need to be avoided. Many questions on the transit recommendation were discussed: • Don't the two criteria "Replaces Aging Structures"and "Capital Costs" negate each other? To an extent, but not all capital costs replace structures that will someday have to be replaced without the project. "Replaces Aging Structures"and "Safety" will both have"on 1-25"added to them. The other three P&N factors relate to the whole project area, tying 1-25 and regional issues together. • Is it premature to screen out alternatives now on the basis of the number of grade crossings? No, because valued features can be given full consideration as complementary elements during Level 3 packaging. • Is there a numeric ranking to support which alternatives are advanced? No, the evaluation did not involve any formula. Only comparative evaluations were made to identify a set of alternative that best serve the criteria. • Could we unknowingly be eliminating the alternative with the best travel times? Door-to-door travel times were factored in, and a Reliability criterion also addresses your concern. • Are you going to apply the travel demand model to these six alternatives? The model will be run on the BRT alternative and some of the Commuter Rail ones. • Why are no High Speed Rail alternatives recommended? One ought to be advanced. Primarily because high speed operation limits any line to just one Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:103225105.TAC,2004 thr"200612004 MEETINGMINUTES112.09-0IITAC-12090[doc Page E-170 NORTH 125 a EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 9,2004 Page 3 of 8 intermediate station, which may serve fewer riders. We might run one HSR alternative through the model to validate assumptions made in Level 2A. • There was consensus that Alternative BRT A (along US 287) should be advanced. • If our ultimate purpose in transit alternatives screening is to identify one rail alternative to advance, we should retain Alternative F, with a spur line from Milliken to Greeley. Building that may be less problematic than Alts. C, D, and E along l- 25. Suggest that Alternative CR"F" replace D or E, which are much more similar. • Much more information on why alternatives are or are not recommended to be advanced needs to be provided. Response: We will produce a document with comments for each rating and will post it on the internal project website. Many of today's concerns will be revisited when complementary elements are considered in Level 3 screening. 7. 1-25 Interchange Planning Process • Todd Frisbie and Tom Anzia presented the proposed planning process. • There are four criteria to consider where new interchanges on 1-25 might be proposed: (1)AASHTO minimum spacing —one mile for segments classified as urban, two miles for rural; (2) adjacent to a congested interchange; (3) serve significant future population and employment projections; and (4) connect to regionally significant roadways. • How the existing urban/rural classifications might be changed will be researched. • Two scenarios are being developed that will bracket the potential interchange plan and its effects on 1-25: Accessibility and Mobility. • Running the travel demand model will require assumptions, so both scenarios will be run to identify traffic issues that are sensitive to new interchange locations. • This process will be driven by policy decisions since it affects both regional and local issues. Next Meeting: January 13, 2005 1:30 to 3:30 PM Southwest Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J'103225I05.TACI2004 tMu 200612004 MEETING MINUTE5112-09-041TAC-/20904.doc Page E-171 (\« « l l ' . I . I 1 ( ; 44 Q . / / ! / m Q / j g 2 , $ / % ° ® k « / ; % co \ _ / § \ § / A s e ` € E E « / e ) \ ] k \ \ / ) % a ct ) § / ` - ® .4)...: a ; ] / c _ ; / / / } / 5 ) } ) ) ( k w ) { t 2 2 ` « ( ) G 2 \ 0 { \ 4 ] » Cu A t ) 2 ) C. a | f $ : a 2 « ! ± I Ill / / — \ Z 5 a } \ ; ® ° ) $ ) \ ) ' % ± • Z. \ \ \ k - : p [ / 2 { [ ] ) 4 % / ) I } 4- § E e ) ) to' o / { f Ni La▪ m / / \ } \ \ ) \ ( \ ( 46 ) / ; } k Z o 0 § o H 0000 o » a 0 o & ± \ ) 13 sc." t i o § ; E \ } / in ) o /, co co , ; _ # < ° \ « ca k \ j E § CD E * E - y a _, a � ) B / ® ® CO © k ) , = •e # b c f a 2 { 2 = > c -) c 2 / / k 7 % ± 3 o 0 « / 0 a 0 co 0 a < < / ) Page E-172 » � --- . - . -s . - - - E - � . . . . Emz < \ : I I 1 \ I i / I ` I \ \ \ + h 9 Z o 0 o ta EE 6 co j e e ) / § \ R 2 • § E \ ' E § cnz C \ c / / / co ` \ \ \ \ ) \ C / k \ k U _ ( \ \ \ / Ori, / •: _ , la / § 2 0 W 5 C \ / \ / ) \ ] / / \ \ \ r. 43- ® } { k / / { } / E e - n 7 7 ( IA ° ( : ) { { a ) ] \ Q E \ H ± ) _ . E E E u 2 3 3 g / E E i « I . a # - ) k . ° \ ^ H \ 7 \ t c a ) f 2 ( » / — ! c » \ 4 e Q c / J § _ / ) / \ ± Co/ y = 0 } \ 5 4- t a { } § t u 3 \ / ) \ C C } / // / ) \ / ® H \ ( } H 0 0 \ ti eN § ) § a) 0) { i { S. ! ! { « sr' § 0) Z ® m - @ 2 § » § 2 E ® L. L. a L. a ( 2 0 0 B \( 2 = g E E \ = 2 \ it ) / ) $ / CO 2 E c = C » 2 -6 -ch. \ [ 2 e f ; MP - ` 3 ) a e # = e ! i.0 4 \ \ E G L.T. \ { ' riot } \ \ ) \ i \ { a3 k / - J f H } - ] / \ \ ) co ) co / A ) \ ge E-173 . . . . . . . . . . . .-- // i \ ( ( I I I ; } ; ; ! ; k j =-\ 44 Ch Q / 1 § O q > / ° j mC . . / { ) j i § k CO0o - \ \ j _ - 8 — ._ 7 } k \ Co ) \ ° ` \ \ •- } \ \ -t d c ( 5 3 7 \ § ] / { \ / - 2 ) co ) \ ) } f k S { CO E ° > ! f -a,) ° E. / _ { f \ % ( \ \ \ \ CD \ 2 a,' \ / \ . o < \ , f ti \ a & 2 ! k,,, \ • R § ti ' f C E 0 t \_ a s $ ; C.'. 0 / o { / ) \ : k * 2 w % § t % G § { ± i- 6 ] G G } { 0 / i E.4:: } H } } } \ } { 0 } \ \ \ \ <CO / - \ -40 \ w k § C Z. i 0 \ a a / § L'` _ co ct- - \ a' a ) § [ o ) / _ a ! 2 G ` ® / j _ < / / \ \ \ j / J { 2 i ! \ \ \ \ a3 Z \ \ } } / co 2 \ \ \ 0 \ ) \ ) E { \ \ Page E-174 « i ! i i ; F ; : ; I I I I , i } \ % • In - li, m \ 0 ,...... 6 o E § §E / 0 j ; a § \ § \ \ \ ( \ { % \ { 3 3 s / { 2 § { i ct \ / @ = « C 7 t ! # : 2 V 2 \ ) \ k ( % '112 \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ \ / f cs . 3 U C• k 2 y 7 7 a) 0 % a : D : 2 » \ 4 \ ) \ \ / \ \ $ § 43 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C \ \ R \ 0 ) } ) E < 7 ; ¢ e e e * a e e o 0 Cr 0 0 0 I.L. 0 0 w L & ® ) / t 0 , § § e 2 { k 14 ) ) \- a. = 8 : b 7 \ - ` ° - \ T � t \ \ _ / c 2 / « } E f = ] / { k ( ( / / { \ j \ / / \ ) \ * ( ) F0 J A J -, ) 3 J E / 0 a 0 ) ) ) / \ } \ \ Page E-175 . . . . . . . . . . . . < . . ! I I ; i I ! J j t ; i ' . . & � V) . 0 q / 2 / _ \ § ; i a) ! cu $ @ m 2 / / $ / ( o \ ) Flil -05& / { { / \ 4 2 IS R_ / a _ - k \ 11 Ot _& . Cl. \I— I / \ C" CO • o / ti o H_ § % # 0 0 ® / / \ I / \ / O E o 7 a ) % t ! i ° § § F $ ) ! « ) o \} co _ § >. 0 w < 7.1 h3 22 / / f 4 ) # $ :� ( \ � \ 3 ] ) / / 2 2 = j \ / 0 ) ) ge E-176 w^ _- %7 • Nolzix -� MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: January 13, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on December Meeting Minutes • No comments • 3. Level 2A Transit Screening Update • The project team will request that Craig G. describe why a rail alignment was not considered on the WCR 13 alignment. • It was commented that Weld County population will eventually be greater than the Larimer County population. • It was asked in community land use plans were considered in developing rail alternatives because a new rail alignment would affect land use patterns. The project team used existing and future population and employment projections to develop the transportation improvement alternatives. • It was suggested that the planning horizon for this study is too short and a longer term planning horizon should be considered. • Generally, the TAC agreed with the alternatives to be carried into Level 2B screening. 4. Transit Modeling • The transit modeling approach tests the affect of the alignment of an alternative, the speed and the affect of connectivity on ridership and travel time. The travel time includes the time to travel between a home or work location to a rail station. • It was commented that the Two Rivers Parkway area is growing in demand. The TAC had some concerns that the alternatives being shown in the modeling approach do not serve this area. Carter-Burgess explained that the goal in the modeling approach is to test concepts and not specific elements. • The purpose of the modeling is to test how speed and end points affects travel demand and to compare the various technologies (i.e. commuter rail, bus-rapid transit and high- speed rail) against each other. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC1200512005 MEETING MINUTES0113051TAC-011305 dor Page E-177 NORTH I-25 ,k 'r-,fttn..4r EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee January 13,2005 Page 2 of 8 • It was noted that for long distance travel, the public is more likely to rail technologies than bus technologies. • The modeling effort will give an estimate of the transit capacity needs in the corridor. 5. Preliminary Results of 2A Highway Screening Through Level 2A screening, the team has developed the following results and recommendations for review and discussion by the TAC. Additional Lanes • Widening 1-25 to 6 or 8 lanes would be carried forward while widening US 287 and US 85 would be dropped as stand-alone alternatives. There were no comments received on these results. Managed Lanes • Alternatives that do not require conversion of the new lanes from SH 7 to SH 66 for restricted use were recommended to be carried forward for further consideration. • HOV and HOT lanes tend to encourage carpooling while Toll lanes that do not provide an incentive to carpool and do not encourage greater carpool use. • It was asked if the Tolling alternatives consider parallel arterials or just a single alignment. • • One of the Tolling alternatives is consistent with the recommendations of the tolling enterprise study. • It was commented that the recommended solution should be more than just a CDOT solution. The recommended solution needs to include non-CDOT components. • Tolling alternatives have an advantage over traditional highway projects because they have a revenue source. • Initially the new lanes south of SH 66 were intended to be HOV lanes which were part of the original MIS recommendation. However, in the EA for the widening these additional lanes were cleared to be general purpose lanes. The TAFS recommendation was to covert the additional lanes to HOV lanes. • There was some question on how well have the new lanes south of SH 66 have been defined as general purpose lanes. It was commented that it may be theoretically still possible to convert these lanes to HOV lanes. • It was decided to keep the alternatives that convert the new lanes south of SH 66 to HOV or Toll lanes. These could be screened out in the evaluation of altematives and/or could be evaluated as a phase to another managed lane alternative. • Alternative A of the limited access lanes was recommended for additional analysis while Alternative B was dropped because capacity was in excess of what is anticipated as necessary to meet demand. Upgrade Highway Classification • It was recommended that upgrading both US 85 and US 287 not be carried forward as stand- alone alternatives. Additional analysis of US 85 was conducted and showed that 1-25 would remain 10 to 50% over capacity even if US 85 was converted to a freeway-type facility. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation I • J10322S,TA(]200512003 MEETING MINUTE510133051TAC-011303.doc Page E-178 • NORTH 1-25 It"; EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee January 13,2005 Page 3 of 8 • The TAC decided that it was not necessary to model US 85 as a stand-alone alternative commenting on the difficulty of converting US 85 to a freeway. Parallel Arterials • The TAC was concerned that parallel arterials were not being considered in the study. They commented that parallel arterials do provide some benefit to segments of 1-25 and that off- system (i.e. parallel arterials) improvements can help to relieve some demand on 1-25. • Parallel arterials are not being considered as a stand-alone solution but are still being carried forward as a complementary improvement. New Highway • It was asked if it is necessary to model a new highway alignment to determine the impact it might have on 1-25 demand. • These alternatives had the largest potential for environmental impacts. Congestion Management • Congestion Management alternatives will be retained as a complementary alternative but do not provide enough capacity or demand reduction to be a stand-alone alternative. • • There were no TAC comments on the congestion management. Next Meeting: To be determined Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC 200512005 MEETING M/NUTES01/3051TAC-0/1305.doe Page E-179 , i I I— 18 n W • • H O co co Z 0 ' 6 co'J y J > U o E o oo i 8 9 ED U > U U j a P2 J N U c > yj aoi o d c a a `° a) = E E oa y 0 2 00 '- U o -0 U �? cy E o o t to 0` i a O N N L C c O E U U a ad. a o a) a .N m -o 0 o as o 3 ° o Can U13 /al C ,_ a) U U ,_ L. r, q yi 'RI c V� £ �1 v )._ @,0 3 a t O icote cN 2 to N L 0 V E U ,E ° "°0 'C 2 ti C -o E m Jo "�^�pi,I� `O O` -C 0 0 N O 0 00 as 3, '-, W Cuto I— _o U' 0 a Y m 0 0 '0 E --aa W P J v g 9 O I4 v U W Co C o _. C t0 O m h 2 " E. 1 • Z y a) U y ¢ n 0 C R 3 CI a H R c a ti l 4 T o o a o d A a) C O 2 y C y C F �. 0) N 0 v L "O a E V a) N -E N . ``' = O w .m > E c0) al m 63'` W m W U a`) 4- 0 C o c o o O E c 46 o t 0 ..� cow -Cr Z o Z, o 2, Up L, 0 0 3 2., ¢ U e 3 Q U U Li, U �— U H U U U O O H H U w cc O 1 a u a w h c C o) vim) y a) a.) o Wem Q a a s a a S E o z U °2 Z E.„ C y 0 0 al o to 0 N N a) N E .0 O) o 'O N Y C Y C C o. Q76 T x C m m E L E y a) Y o f E o 5 Z y Q Q c a' a) m m O t N U - U C O W W • L co �` fo Q _ m m ,�' m U U N U y Q E Iii af L tT N c a on M1 0 u o 0 a) N 0 - a) N a! 2 -C a) to N O C M 2 N r = CD , O Y CO O Co U o O 0 % 9 Page E-180 # !7 �- I --� , - ,I . , , - , 0 4 4 . 44 E o ( § ° 2 > q k ( E § g c k o a ° § k q c 2 § o / ' 4 o d E § c o -0 R 2 k E 6 ili C c o k \ / 7 § • g $ k ( 7 § o 8 „ m § 13 g — ( ° ° o $ k 7 : k 6 ) ® $ E f G c - _ c ° ( ar 2 / 12 § ° E W § k m E / / k k / 8 2 » ti. .$ E EE k . \, q 2 G c § m ) 0 2 , 43 L3 ) - k 7 / \ c m 7 _O § / 2 f 2 C c o c 7 c = \ % R \ \ % 7 ° c & ro> O § k m m Q 2 •_ o e \ f « o e E \ < \ E i- 0 / % O 0 c 0 « •$ » § z \ § z R R $ / R 2 4 » E ) . Q 0 O R e e 0 0 U E O m 0 / $ 0 < ] ) w ! / ■ la E 2 2 (a c. fa 0 CD 7 0 / @ a f 7 2 0. Q. J 4 Q. k E k / _ 7 \ - 0 / m : k § G § k \ — / 2 # 2 § .ck@ c § 2 - o m II Ts$ g ELL § m 2 @ # 2 i I ) t / e. c u a o o o I f ■ c « $ ` / - co \ , < m 2 \ / cK C2 C2 � / / \ 2 $ k \ Page E-181 ire 4 • N W gy E U z > o D aU a OU -43 Q' C 2' 0• •> s E OU Q p U C qN .a) N t Y U a) E N O N a) no a U 7 w `.. _ IS a) U r a E a w .� g ., Fr J b E > a a`) _c U -6 E ° ° 3 a �] .o Q 3@it @7 @ @ c 3 m $ @ $ a m 6 @ V Y N (6 L C y E C 13 la g 6 Y� "O to ` 4(1-) a1 N E C a _ 5= aCOns v E v d > a m `° ° ita ° .S CO ° E E o E E o E 2 c o W J Y ❑on v E > > Z Y 2 U CD Z `c u E V Q I l O U C • aQ. ) • Q g F 1 b c k`. 0 N a N 5 _y a., . ❑ a Y N -0 co m 0)0 C V N a) LC` C C N > 'w C a w w0 = 0 p cn a a U J C ° �O ° O r °� N d O O N U 0 0 co E c o Q F• U F- F• U ❑U U J Z F F- s a_ m U a_ -, a °i o a a) c S. S. ti CI ca a) c aa)) 0 ti N Qt a a C. a E _ 0 U a. Q In C to N Lti E E g m >' a1 N C N C N to L Y to.— N L C a) N C ` �. Ii ;t" Y U a) N m d in N CO a) a) y N CD F 2 q • j d Y Y n7 N N cll v m Z ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ H CO Lt > > z Y to 0 z g Page E-182 �y r II—T-TT ; , , � , a 0 \ _ m H cti \ Z o \ § , \ § \ _ E \ ( -• \ E « ( 6 j \ E 9 cr L. § \ ` 0 0 j § § c C § \ \ { { \ Lo \ \ ci 4-- \ § \ \ \ \ \ \ % / { a ( m k j \ } { \ \ ( o RS 6 \ 2 \ , 2 / ] Ill / -4 k ) L. \ / \o [ , > \ a G &) « ° / $ I j I— . j \ \ \ ea \ ) / \ / \ # 2 ` C ® o ® k - « 2 k 0 ) \ / k \ ( k ( ( ( / ; \ ! ' e a o 2 8 = 5 5 ..i3 5 » 3 e@ / Tic!, a ! k ! t ! \ | 2 / ) / ) ) I k \ OO / \in t ] ) } y - \ ) 6 § \ \ o _ — a , { ) c0 % / / - ° \ } ( ( ) \ H \ ) \ 0 ) ) \ \ C0\ < ) / m ) \ \ 0 \ Page E-183 er 4 • ..,.. rniO N„..,, z E O U OO j O E °�° c c E N o a O O L. C .C Ui C y -2 a @ a E E Q a O - W V CIle es. @ 3 O C d Y 4 La 3 Z -E, `c d l e 4 1 O U N o C Y .CIS O ..0 CD • 75 N U) a g Etc- b w C O Y O O = C I y O O O C C - Ep- O Q C O N — q6, ra O O w bo t�ti� C O O 4� O 0 C b Q F- H U U a e v ° u '0 Ng a d o m CC) 0 f 11 531- •-, t a 5 E 0 Z U 2 ro in N 0 aN c E 8 Q r b C p C N cN t, • t I- -, Z K 9 a) al WoE O as , Z s Page E-184 y Y { NORTH 1-25 •• EIS . MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: February 24, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on January Meeting Minutes • No comments 3. Schedule • • March 17th TAC and RCC meetings have been cancelled • Next TAC meeting April 14th • Public Meetings in June 4. Public Comment • Kim P. provided a summary of public comments received. Gene Putman asked what portion of the comments are about FasTracks. Kim P. said she had not put numbers to the comments. • A number of comments received stated that while tolling is a feasible option, the toll must be reasonably priced. A TAC member asked what people think is a reasonable toll rate. Kim P. said that she had not heard people specify the dollar amount. Some people have said that E-470 is too expensive. It is = $0.17/mile. 5. Background • Level 1 —77 alternatives evaluated for fatal flaws and 34 progressed. In Level 2A evaluated these alternatives and 21 progressed. We are currently in the Level 2B evaluation process and hope to wrap it up in June. Today we will focus on development and initial evaluation efforts for highway alternatives. Subsequent meetings will focus on transit alternatives. 6. Modal Approach • Graphics were posted that illustrate the changes in households, population and employment in the study area between 2001 and 2030. • A number of requests were made to get copies of the graphics. The team will post the graphics to the web site along with minutes and the presentation. • 35% of existing households in the study area are in the NFR. This is expected to increase to about 40% by 2030. 7. No-Action • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Maned Administration Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC1200512005 MEETING MINUTES10224051TAC-022405.doc Page E-185 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation, Technical Advisory Committee February 24,2005 Page 2 of 7 • Gene P. asked to show volumes south of SH 7. South of SH7 traffic volumes go up steadily. Gene P. also suggested showing the charts as line graphs instead of bar graphs. • TAC suggested that capacity should be shown on the graphics. • Vehicle miles traveled in 2001 27 million per day in 2030 48 million per day This represents a 77% increase 8. Demand(8-Lane Model Run) • With 8 lanes on I-25, VMT increases by about 2%. • Improvements to 1-25 reduce projected demand on US 85 and US 287 by 5 to 10%. • TAC suggested that the charts should show the reduction to US 287 and US 85 projected volumes due to improvements to 1-25. 9. Access (8-Lane with Additional Access Model Run) • Demand increases over the 8-lane model run demand by adding access to 1-25 • It was suggested that CR 36 should be a new interchange location instead of CR 30 because CR 36 has an existing overpass. It was also suggested to not label new interchange locations. • Vicky M. pointed out that interchanges are an extremely sensitive subject. • The small increase in volumes at the US 34 interchange are added to 125 may be a result • of more short trips occurring on 1-25. • Bob F. stated that it needs to be clear that at this stage, this is not a recommendation of interchange locations. This was just a modeling exercise to determine impact of adding new interchanges to 1-25. New locations will be analyzed in detail prior to making any recommendations. • One goal of the EIS is to develop an access management plan for the corridor. 10. Summary of Model Run Results ▪ Providing 8-lanes on 1-25 would bring the 2030 travel time close to the travel time experienced today. • Adding interchanges degrades travel time somewhat. • At the upcoming meetings the team will summarize all the measures used to evaluate the alternatives and show them for all model runs. Next Meeting: April 215`, 2005 Loveland Police and Courts 1:30-3:30 PM Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation • J:1037751TACU00JO005 MEETING M/NUTEy10)7.l0SITAP0I3J0S.doc Page E-186 ui'-r ! I I I wa • in W Nx b = o Z N E °: d 7 co pU � U o E o > 9m U O 0 N C p N 8 y > >- O C y a a o= O N E 'E °c a O O ) N O v) 2d V N N ,4) o -o C E U L C hiiiit U a) g a fill III s o�yy 3 W ca H a0 :n aY -o E -o w o Q 0 I 3o N V W • cm O N C o Z W O C E.' CO m @ • ' V _U U N D I C Z in a. a. E a n v 1 o U g N N U in -E >, 'j O -o N a coN C E 0 a) co NC c O I) L }} C N N wO w C ? > O U W N c ia m 0 m w w 0 0 a) w w 5 s a03 `) o o c o a ` O 0 Ecc c c '5 0 ��° a t m 2 2.. o a. o 2' c Z. 2 o p p ' d K o r Q 0 0 tL i5 H O H 0 a 0 O OH I- U w 0 d ti 4 tl C w a) y ? al aa)i aai 3 of a) N ; N ` E Q a a a h a a Q. G I. E o 0 ccq N a N N a) E •3 C I- - p • C 8 N 12 o c c a p Y o N 'c m 3 !9 N cnv Q N m a a) m O L a) O E U C O W Ci co c co • N s Wt. c m G) < Q L m m m a) U CD GO C O-, a m .- o c= 2 E — E c0 L L N T O) > C N N N N O a) CO O L To N O L CD (0 CO O 3 F- tL Z N F- 2 0 --) 0 Y -.I O CO 0 0 0 0 It Page E-187 • NW • ZCD F4 E E g O 0 8 p O E E O; J 0 C OU 0• L. 0 0 O = Y 7 U C c c 6 C° - U O .C O E 7 "° -a U V) c 0 7 0 0 3 w o m c 8 MI m @ 3 0 2 G E o �i a) $' o -b 7 0 Q 0 3 @ CO ° 2 0 C U -V N j (.2� m >? co -0 @ 2 2 4.1 b q a V-w c L% to 0 .C •U C -o @ C p, Ri a7 a) m Y w E a� L a) 0 O co 1] C — CO-ci DS CD E C o U F. a7 W a7) O CO° E m F— d r LLi_ L° E E il 4 i 0 U a n R y C COQ. • C Gay O d I C 0 C a) n 3 o o a) `o o c o c ° • N w N C E a`) cc .o ,O m as in -°) o U '� c to W ~ U w 0 O O O J 'O ya) 0 r-- w 76fa li .c " O ° 3 2 C C 2 O O ° m o p 1 C C o c ° g O �' 0 I 0 0 I 0 O 2 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0.N :' a o O 0 0 F IL I - I- IL 0 0 0 u. Um 0 s Ho I- KO U a (r. -0 t Its a) 0) a) a) a) a) %, c to to in a) G) a) d a) a) a) a) vi E Q a aL.. a` a a a e E h O 0 U 00 8 u/ N CO ai c Q V p- t .0 7 o 2 L d 0 c a3 Lo 3 u) en C. d m O u E rj O ti cn c L.tm (7 •m m m = m I 1:1 = 1) o v - 2 C W @ C U N °. o 0 as m 2 X 2 C > L 7 0 ao v .`� c o o o o aci o o c `m �° a m aci o CO s I- u_ z v) Q Q m I- a m a m i— Y u_ -, S 0 2 2 9 Page E-188 < ; ; \ \ \ \ : : . . I S m \ k / hi E k m , E ) § M § = \ \ \ § ` \ \ = \ / \ \ R § ] f ' a § % f \ _ , \ \ { § / ) ) { § / \ \ k / } k / ° } { { ) k ) \ \ j \ } \ \ \ k { ` ® \ / & I 4 f « ( 3 w ) / E [ > \ Z CO } 7:3 0 / Z Z % ) R O 0 ow wc N / 0 C 0 Ets- o A e / > ) 0 \ 2 / \ \ 7 » ! ] & : = \ y o i : f : ° o ° \ ) ] 3 2 { 4- 0 G / f , k in \ \ p 3 \ z, H - § § \ - _ \ k = \ ) 't < H o CC ( H 0 O 0 \ Z H H / I a J ± \ / 7 \ 7 \ \ C ` ) ID ) 2 2 | q ) 2 \ * a $ « a a i \ i 0 ) CG c b ` Ls) E E E E © _ : f ! in_ , i o ) 3 f ) « ) k ° ca,73 k $ 0 C 'C § ) \ & * « ) a \ § ] } 2 § / / § 2 ) { / E f K t - - , ® & } \ Z 3 ] 3 k j ) / Co / ) \ ) ) } 1 \ ) \ / Page E-189 : • . \ ; I \ : \ ° ; » • ; I i I I I I \ I I ; \ I 44) . / ELI / / 0 / \ 90 e b ; o ± » { \ ` § E / 0 ] E » 3 _ \ E "f6 (6 E g E \13 .0 = � c B . 13 03 c \ \ \ \ o ) f co ° ` co r. • S z ) \ { / f @ ° / } k \ / \ k CI \ ) 2 E 2 f ) • k § \ \ w ) / # a \ w 2 ] . 2 % ] w a O , f ± ) •r & 2 \ _Te P. Q. ) ) ) I § A 0 § § | t \ » \ C \ / 0 _ G m ) \ \ / ) / j - ) } \ ; / j \ } \ , k ! ) k / k \ ( ( O \ \ bC ) cf f e e o j a 0 moo < 0 H o H H H e 2 ) « k � i C. ) ; Co § § § ! * t ( a & L. / / / ca ; t ta , s ` _ e ! E a } a { k E ` ` k m 2 k = ® ® \ \ A ° ) / ) q > \U § / } to } \ o ) \ G o co § • t � E e # ) _Y O _ = ° m Zr. , « § } { - / ) J ) / / 0 CO f 0 \ CO \ f E \ m A G a \ , Page E-190 1 r , = I I I I 1 I ta • in 4 -14,__4 W H CO z • 0 o E U OO ? CO R C) E pp N co O O O 6 E U 2 a C m Cl, a O O 'j O O .a E NCO w 'O "O V L O C = O t 3 .3 0 @ EE .n v o a a @ -q @ o Q iOa O' 'C) w a) c1 @ o C •c_ @ o 0 ra N C co C . r N `p H a) Y 6 a W o• c c 3 z -,E co .o r • a d 0 O 1. O 0 U CO LI "s- 0 a + 7ag. CO.n O.o M a Ez r aw N N J O OO at 3. L_ a' co e N 2' C c t crn p J CO) U a N •O J > � CO O O a) U - O ti U J Nit ip 0 4- 4- 4- J 0 C '6 w L. N N m C -c O O O n C C C 0 o N CU o E E -o E a) o o 3 3 3 _ C a r U r "I'D O O O Z. Z. J � E �a O O O m • : "' Q �i F F I- U U co O m J U m U U LL a n a C N N N y y IP 0 w e z a 4 4 a 4 L. L. c E Q F. E o o 0 o L'•to L. N Cl) C E > 3 c o c > N C7 C 7 C N O Jca • N N m c +a), = > r o) n c ep E I C m d -tip 3 O Y U 4- m E. c.) d m m a) O E U CO m J N C N = CO ti a) ii Z O ❑ CC =) Z O m O Q 4' 0 Y Page E-191 NORTH 125 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: April 21, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky • SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Comments on February Meeting Minutes • No comments 3. Project Review/Update • • Recent comments on the project's draft Purpose and Need statement from the US Army Corps of Engineers and FHWA are being addressed. Outcome will be discussed at the May RCC meeting. • Today we'll discuss recommended results for highway alternatives screening process. Next month we'll discuss transit. • Level 2 screening results will be presented at a series of four public meetings in June — dates and cities are in the meeting packet. 4. Preliminary Level 2B highway evaluation and screening • Holly M. presented slides showing the highway screening approach, the overall Level 2B screening process flow chart, and the four types of highway alternatives under consideration. It was suggested that a picture of a Limited Access Lanes facility would be helpful. • Chris P. explained why there are not yet any model results for the Toll and HOT lane alternatives. The travel demand models from two MPOs have been combined into one new model for the project. It recently became evident that the DRCOG model was not functioning properly for tolling. There is a "bug" in the software that must be fixed. DRCOG is working with their software vendor to correct this region-wide problem. Until then we must limit our evaluations to the data that is available. • The bar charts for the Limited Access Lanes and for the General Purpose Lanes graphics show different daily traffic volumes because new capacity on I-25 will attract more demand —trips from other roads. • It was asked what is there to prevent more access points being added to the Limited Access facility after it is operating, and how much pressure to add more access have • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 1:103115105.71102 004 thru 100611005 TAC101110S ITAC-041103,doc Page E-192 ix.ra NORTH I25 } EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. Technical Advisory Committee April 21,2005 Page 2 of 9 existing Limited Access facilities experienced. The Project Team will research these issues. • Suggestions were made to show separate volume-to-capacity ratios for the different lane types; and to show more bars that match the various termini of the alternatives. • It was asked what the working definition for congestion is. The project is using the North Front Range MPO's 0.87 volume-to-capacity ratio, at which point conditions become congested. It is not the high speeds that a committee member witnessed along the T-Rex project in southeast Denver. • A comment was made that the favorable safety evaluation for the 8-lane alternative is surprising since the southern California experience is that 8-lane highways have twice as many incident calls as 6-lanes. • The Mobility graphic that shows both the Northbound PM Peak Travel Times and the % Congested Lane Miles will be split into two separate graphics. That will allow for a larger vertical scale to show differences between alternatives, and also the possible addition of southbound travel times. • The Aging Infrastructure graphic prompted the question of why all of the alternatives north to SH 66 are given the 'Worst Rating". That is because the • 2030 No Action Alternative will have replaced deficient structures and Poor/Fair pavement as far north as SH 66, so only the alternatives that have limits further north will further improve aging infrastructure. • The practicability bar chart compares alternatives in terms of their construction costs divided ny person-trips, not "per annual user" as shown. Operating and maintenance costs will be added to construction. The intent is to develop a measure that can compare total costs between highway and transit alternatives in Level 3 screening. The key point is the relative difference in costs between alternatives. For example, Limited Access Lanes to SH 1 would cost five times as much as HOV lanes to SH 66. It was concluded that this graphic should be revised before it is shown to the public. • Gina M. presented the environmental screening results. Level 2B analysis used findings from 1A and new data such as total vehicle miles and hours traveled and peak hour speeds for adjacent residential development, but air quality, wetlands, and hazardous materials are potential environmental issues. • The differences in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) between alternatives are relatively small. • The two highway alternatives that appear to best meet Purpose and Need, 8 General Purpose Lanes and Limited Access Lanes, also require the most new right-of-way and have the highest costs. • Based on the screening performed in Level 2B, no highway alternatives are likely to have what would be considered significant impacts. • The question of what difference new fuels by the year 2030 might have was asked, and the response was given that they would likely affect highway . alternatives the same way. Federal Highway Administration'Federal Transit Administration'Colorado Department of Transportation b103225105.TAC1200I thru 200611003 TAC10421051TAC-042105.doc Page E-193 NORTH 1-25 EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. Technical Advisory Committee April 21, 2005 Page 3 of 9 ■ Holly M. presented the preliminary 2B highway screening recommendations. Retain seven alternatives as Stand-Alone for Level 2 screening: the No-Action; the 6-lane and the 8-lane General Purpose Lanes, the Limited Access Lanes to SH 1; and the HOV, Toll and HOT lanes to SH 14. Eliminate five alternatives as Stand- Alone: HOV and HOT Lanes to SH 66, Toll Lanes to SH 66 and to US 34, and HOT lanes to SH 34. • It was asked why the 6 General Purpose Lane alternative should be retained if it would not fully met future travel demand. Discussion included this alternative's advantages that it could provide an opportunity for a balanced package of highway and transit improvements. If only the 8 lane General Purpose Land Alternative is retained, then there is no capacity need for transit or local road improvements. There was general agreement to keep both the 6- and 8-lane alternatives on the table until there are compelling reasons to screen them out. Next Meeting: May 19, 2005 (Please note the time change as was discussed at the end of the April 21st • Meeting.) Southwest Weld County Services Building 3:30—5:00 PM • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TAC\2004 thou 2 00 612 00 5 TA C1042105ITAC-042105.doc Page E-194 , . . . y . , . . / 2 r i . ( \ i 44 Q / ) § , / \ \ B o a j B o ` a) ` E E § [ ) ra ) 0 % E 8 O f (\ / { { \ / / y ) . \ \ \ \ \ E e CD\ \ \ \ « I k t E ) / E ) E ~ 2 2 ) ) } \ % 4 a e 2 § % : ) § \ E p w \ , f its ) W ) Ill — Cl, f \ \ \ C \ \ Q. 3 2 / ~ ) ra . % « d = 2 E Z. _11) \ \ \ / \ / / 15 j E e | § 0 / e e / cu \ } \ \ \ 13 O \ O 0 \ \ ± O 'Z ] o o + o e 8 a. e 0 G e o own \ ® j ° ) 7 \ \ Z. k e § e LII \ o t L. L. � a / ( \ on \ / e E ) a § O § E @ ; } � ®o c cz \ < - C \ ea § 3 § \ \ / 3 \ a 7 E . 0) w 6 « m O o O o m / O -O / ea E G ca= E ) w { _ _Si) - - ) } . Z \ \ F- I / -, 0 Cl) ] 0 \ 0 0 0 0 ) \ ) Page E-195 I 1 I I I i I mss € i ni I-I • r�+ W Hs 6 (24 E E o o O o ° .: Z U • C C o o Z O C •2 O E E ° to iss) o c Y W o C °' c H o D 0 a .c O E h o g ' o O CD ° 3 w m m c U 1.. c d a c U g E 3 a) > ° c c@3 @ ° 8 @ a o a a� f0 13 0 O3 3 O` C w jtl Q V ,c-T2. n 4-- .-. 9 aC CO) L .. C t Ls C 'C > 0 C C w a) O O g — @ E o co h LU 0 O m° E .w H a � _C c a E E e f Es I 0 U • 0 C a lei C 0 I • y it) _ F n u R o c O C of c n O N O C > a c .[ L` O CO a) c.c E O > N@ O 74 O m CO(13 0c 0 -0 c o > F U •► o 0 CO W 3 -J -o ° w w O 4-- O O w N LL .c p �+ c c c o Q E H U c c o r3 p m 2 0 s o = CO p a) 3 3 my n 0 0 0 H lL t-- t- lL 0 0 .6 u_ t.7) m 0 H H (2 Cl— 0 I a a a a) e o a m c c c m a, a, h a a` a ` E Q e E h 0 O a% o N o N NTo m c 'O C _ Q o 7 N ° Y CD N a3 3 0 OJ N a) 5 ° r o Q o _ a u a c c a E 3 ° - Ill c0 N • E Y CO N ca) co N U Q) y aS Q) ° > c U c N a W W C "O a1 Q 00 a1 co = Y = G > N -) aU1 n ro C O N L C d — = C co L .c C O Y ro H a Z co Q Q m I°— 2 O a COO m L° ° m a� ns o I- Y LL -7 2 U' 2 M Page E-196 . _. .. . . - — z » \ e I i I \ / \ } } N q q § \ o z0 E _ § 8 ) / ) \ m § 2 § E ( ` — 2 k { \ Ca• \ \ \ } \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ ® ai \ ) § Ti \ \ k q 11111111 aI a }4 f ) E i o { ! / ) ) /H t \ • i (O / \ & ) \ _ C co o ! # C _ C CO t \ } > ^ m \ ] ] k k \ z \ ) I Cl) 2 c \ \ } k m \ \ p \ § / t / 7 ( \ L' _ \ ) D - Q < e o ce e e e 0 0 « z e / f ± CO 0 ± - a ® '4 G E ) { { ) \ k - ; @ ; m ; ; ; | N ® \ a a L. L. a L. 0 k E _ . [ o ` - E E ( / « a CD i • � ° k * 42 k \ \ 03 CD _ ( ) ( - ) .5 Ca 0 k « 2 \ k 2 / \ / / \ a>)" ± 2 ) {§ { \ ! 9 ) m 2 2 m * _ > / \ J 2 0 0 ) 0 / C / ) \ - d } \ 0 j 0 / Page i i; till I i , 1 t r I ' I I I I I N � �,� W Z u) x 7 0 O N c n 0 7 7 O 0 z N UO N AU 7 t/� 01 O 0 p 0 7• N U O' > 7 O L U > O 7 5 > C U a) o w a`) o -0 a)- a Vi o E c y7 -o ai E 7 E a� v E 7a y E cu O 'C U O 7 U ca CC p r- y 0 0 a) co _a O -0 0 8 0 0 00 c a d ._ .� g CC 0 o w 0 3 E o `o z a) a) ,0 U m -0 C c o d c O 9- co c ° E O = h ti LLI E:-.- C I— 3 E m CO 2 2 N ti, ¢ JD U) a 0 ti 0 1 U 03 C c 0 8 LI N r r ,Ri N c V oi • co a I n 4 W > > E 2 C • a) 0 C tl O O C O c c o c a m c ca N E O 7 j ` j -00 7 C 7 co U •Y O > 0 V C 0 O O O O 7 O 7 ,J > . 7 Ili O U '0 c O 0 0 -C 0 O O V - W ` Q { co 0 0 'C LLl ` I— 0 m -o .LL- O a) O a O O bo,I9 CD C r, a) w a) .0 a E E `a) as c O E o 0 0 o a3 E 0 c C c cc aa) o p `m O 4` co -o 0 0 0 m o o ° 1 Q -, O HO _i a U m U U < U H O H H H H v o v a 4 U 1r y C N 0 o N Q1 L L o z t a a a EE - o o O clu Z 'C r HO _ CO Y C C U -c > EO c O ao z no t cu y r o w = 0 m o • Y fa N N d ca aI -00 n 0 _ a acp 'a)i E o c c J >' 1. o - i i ar O a C. 0 a re a. m co a> -o co co c a' co ca U C l0 C C N O a) E_ C 0 "C N c E C co c O - C c 9 [' N m .C r Het Z Z H S V 2 2 0 a) fr 2 a m o m wca Page E-198 { ',� I I 1 I I I i I I I 1 I 1 I I i . • 4-+ W N 7 rr > CO o �p 0 6 m N F� pE 8 E a .6 N 0 7 U co O 7 a > N a) O > > E 0 c. E rn a -°o O D O C) �j o o `o a 3 0 `) E 0 o c C 3 E yy5 U -(e) N 70 U 'O E U _a O ca rr_`` O N C •c .C @ CO 0 00 0 @ O) ') @ d o b 3 3, a j E. o 'c: a = a m 00CD ea 11, Q C c 0 o o @� ) @ m r a g CJ as c C N O U Q co = C F. as CD O Y a "0 m N > III >' C c 3 z E 2 Co 0 c u) -3 -0 r n O N 1 C O) C 6)d N C N 0 O Y a xx O O O C k m 0 a a00i • C) V N Q C V d @ a -- a, N Ce) a. I- z w a v 1 N Cr, w E . O a w 2 a ` a C O m y to N L O O -2' 1, L. 2' N N C O S �+ 'O -ID 'C O 7 7 C ci) U N N L 2, C c O crJc U O -0 o o C) Ol 07 m j a, O 7 m 0 co C) U 0 'N a j N 0 CJ w 0 w 4- - J O CD L. a) co m m I �j .te m0 C C 0 0 0 N m E E E Cl) E a) '0 a`) o I— Q oa ..'Cl Q H H H U U m o w J o m U U a. 0 U 0 LL U `� 1 ry h 13 R U a CC) CC) CC y) CC) CC) N C) C) (1) a C d 0) C! N N N Q1 N Q N r z t Q. 0, a a` Q. C a CL a E E O 7 a c o as h a N C Y ` in i o m E co Co no N 2 _ > o o o • V h as sa N 0 .C C L O >, N 7 [Q cn Y N m N L L N C C C U Y Z' �` C C N N y y C N C s � 'a m 0 0 o E U m m o :E L @ ° t 7 a I- C Z C7 m it Z 2 U` m U' < --> 0 Y 0 -3 m -3 m Page E-199 1 I i I I i N ~ • H W E-4 O Z O vl m Le C e a ° a Q li (t1'3 FF CW E o e v E S. tl W Q O I O U c It oe E • CO W ey a EL,- -6 ED Er, a '2 0I N c c o • C Wo 2-4 y NC w ro 0 .t0 E x E 4c m 3 Q .. g Lt' a a v CEtt c a) v. a) t a 0 E Q F E " (_) a L-1N $ C < 0 O (0 N hi 2 • U - L N E o U 'C (Q J n H ¢ 2 tY s Page E-200 NORM I-2) -54*4 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: May 19, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Comments on April Meeting Minutes • Minutes OK, no comments. 2. Project Review/Update • • Agency review of Purpose and Need is complete. Copies will be made available June 2, 2005. • There are four public meetings scheduled for June. On the 14th we will be in Greeley, on the 16th we will be in Ft. Collins, on the 2151 we will be in Loveland, and on the 23rd we will be in Longmont. These meeting will include the open house, and a formal presentation. • At the previous meeting, we discussed Level 26 Highway Screening. Today we will be discussing the preliminary transit results. 3. Preliminary Level 2B Transit Evaluation and Screening • Chris P. gave a review of how transit alternatives were modeled. First they coded transit alternatives into the travel demand model, and then coded stations. Assumptions for the modeling included frequent service, fast service, lots of stations, and feeder bus services to improve accessibility. All stations have Park-n-Rides. • Ridership is the most important evaluation criteria for transit. Chris P. presented 2030 daily ridership estimates. All alternatives around 4000 passengers per day. High Speed Rail is 20% higher. Bus Rapid Transit a bit lower. • Ridership numbers came from a multimodal travel demand model. Two models were combined NFRMPO and DRCOG. Both have recently been calibrated. This means that the existing model simulates traffic volumes and bus ridership reasonably well. • The Travel Forecast Working Group agreed that the results are reasonable given the land use assumptions. Also they are similar to existing RTD regional routes—a few thousand people daily. Some were surprised that there was not more variation between alignments. Experts expected 35% of work trips and this is what the model showed. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 1.103225105.TACI20041Aru 200612005 TACI0519051TAC-05I905.doe Page E-201 NORTH 1-25 EIS ._ MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Technical Advisory Committee May 19,2005 Page 2 of 9 • Model seems reasonable so let's check travel patterns in 2030. There is a big dispersal of trips. Not a predominant long pattern. Total, the northern communities generate 3500 trips to downtown Denver. 4. Peer Commuter Rail System Comparison • All day— San Diego, Miami, Dallas-Forth Worth • Peak San Jose, Seattle and DC • Low end of ridership for comparison • Passenger trips revenue hour is also low at 32 compared to 42 for all day since. • FasTracks Commuter Rail Comparison o 2025 ridership 8k— 30k daily • BRT Peer System o Freeway system/HOV lane. 10k average ridership o 1,000 for peak only service o FREX comparison — ridership is less then 500 trips per day. 5. TAFS Results Comparison • Other data available since TAFS Census 2000, DRCOG Roadside Survey, NFR & • DRCOG Household Surveys. TAFS did not have a model that covered the entire • study area. TAFS had more ridership capture on southern because FasTracks was not included. • SW Light rail projections were very low compared to actual ridership. DRC0G & RTD have worked closely with FTA to improve the model and the model ridership forecasts. • Station boarding/activity highest at the south end (DUS). • Feeder bus service shows high service volumes between Greeley and Loveland, and Ft. Collins, Loveland and Longmont, and Fort Lupton and Boulder. 6. Environmental Overview • CRA and CRF have most impacts. Symbology on the graphic seems counter intuitive. Team will take another look at symbology for public. The results are a comparative assessment between alternatives. • What goes into evaluating of Hazardous materials? Considers everything (underground storage, etc...) Almost all transit alternatives had an impact but none were significant. • BRT cost '%to 2/3 of commuter rail. Commuter rail is one-half the cost of High Speed Rail. • As drawn, the alternatives should be screened out as stand alone and tested as complementary. Testing segments— how well does peak hour service work. • Tom A. provided a Level 2 summary. Should stand alone—Stand Alone? r • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation .M05225105.TACI2004 fhru 200612005 TAO051905ITAC-051905 doc Page E-202 NORTH I--2S - • EIS ; MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee May 19, 2005 Page 3 of 9 7. Next Steps • June 2nd meeting — Southwest Weld County Services Complex • June Public Meetings • Level 3 Analysis Next Meeting: June 2, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 3:00—5:00 PM • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J.103225105.TACU 004 Ihry 200612005 TAQ05/905ITAC-051905.doc Page E-203 -y � : , , . . , . , ; I , ; ; . . kt \ i I i I i I i ; I Ili ; i . , • / co C / E / - > ; - / \ 2 ` E • Cr In E § E ; - - § Eric)` ` a ) ! e k e \ \ Ow \ Coto \ \ \ \ \ \ ] k \ \ \ ` E 0 E - E a64. w % 0 2 \ \ / � § 0 { E \ } / \ \ \ ) W i-.1 t / 2 / \ \ Z } _ CL\ ) \ w r 2 -• K0 ) ) ) ) 7 « e Co $ ` `o § a e 2 E i \ / \ cn- \ j t j O 0 e & a \ / O .. -t / = \ tat j \ j \ k \ ± } \ ! ' 0 0 i OH e A 0 f o o OH )- o W c ! > w o til° i # k 7 C ® 2 0 $-O o © \ / ( « a 2 E O o ` xto 0 a § : o \ \ f 01 C * � � \� � ° c \ < k ) \ \ § ( x co L. j \ / u 2 - % / e k } I a & a \ 0 6 / z ) / _ $ .. e a E # L 1 ® > co ° ® ` / / J N 5. 6 7 0 % 0 ) \ 0 \ 0 / 0 0 ) \ \ Page E-204 I I I I I I 1 I , I • 14, 4 �N, W x N Zx E a o N E OU C > O O N N O O 3 E E o Q N c N O UC O O Q p O �G r O U O OU C C n C O' O U O ≤ p E O - L U N o 00490 o Lo-- 0 3 a-. Li m c o d o m c o E a f E 3 a) > o L. -c o To @ 0 3 @7 c, oo 0 a 2 aa(3, (gym oe. o m 3 c -o @ c @ Q V `_' N a) .C C a5 •U c -a c O a a c E n r 0On t �m.. ._ • aa C -O a co N E O 3 U C C .C o a) 2o L — co _c C -n .- 0 CO 0 W N U CO E w. E-- d � L. LL, o E E F; C n ) Q II ti 3 U • 0 n ' a3 q • Ua. v `C ti 1 LG C O e c c 3 L O U p a a O O C C O. N gcg ca c 6 O C O 'C a) c c 'H q O O m co O m 0 c U -o 0 v) W F- L? 6' 4... 0 V- 4- 4- -I -p o O ,._ w m L1. -t 0 1 O o a C C O O o a 1° o p =7:3 O C o � O Q 0 0 I- LL H F- LL 0 0 a LL U m 0 H F- cc 0 - )i a M ao F. 13 0 C N W y CD N ID CD rn" P Q a L. a a a a L. L. E - - - - o o 0 Z` ^ o o -o c ti m c o m o) a) c — c • gyp OCr N C O _Y N CD N C O. N CD O o U N co E U LL• a) a a) 2 N I (if) = o = N O N i LL N m = _ > --> C ?? c a LL a3 u' c -o a) a a _ >. a3 c C C C U Y F U T al C .O O) - -O C a n - C i C L co N . a5 ^ F- Z LO < Q O Cl) - H m d m d m Fo- Y Li - O I 2 o Page E-205 -- I I i I i I I I; II ' I i N ~ •!aW Z a E8 Z E N E N C Er O O° O O• '00 O o ° tq O O ° 8 . O' C i O > O 8 ` C ° c t, O E' C O O 'C Q O Q. O N tej y ui 0 cis 0 �? 0° a o O N N ° C O NDo •is o • I c @ m a) 'c o @ a`> E m EY 5 t "o c Oo 0 E a a0 ≥ N E 0 O 0 O C O co ° ° N E O E N o W E -I Y ❑ o -a E E E > � Z Y I C.) C7 e g r a 0. I I O U C o o to a y W O a. C b • y H e a h 0 m O 1n • .° 0 - n) C O N C 'O O C C . O = r C - m - 0 O' N c O N N C N C O = 0 4) N .C �, O a 0 Cl)J 'Si 0 U LL LL O O CJ O co c- O O O Se 48. J wE. Z m r-. 4.- O it -c E.1 EEL rc) 3 O O c c O O ° E IY 3 3 -o ❑ -o Y ❑ -O o F- o o 0 ❑ co ca Z- o O o I o CO I v ti Q a H U cc H H U O O J Z H F- s u. it O u. 1 r ti o C G a) m H d a) y a a) a a e a a a E ti o 7 U o C L ti o E as N 0 E C O A 0al .c N N C O 0 y C $ 0 O1 O N ti o Y 1:2 Y a j 2 (13 2 ° 2 2 0 w °1 a o 2 g o 0 m ° `c m m ° m v m c ° ° o o 'a) o CO F- M Z �. _i O O E O F- 0 (2 I -> Z Y = O - O Page E-206 . 3 . ; : , kyta tM N ' I. Q / +a5 ci P. { cj / k \ \ \ \ ) a { j ( 0 \ \ § % \ .e 2 65 o / \ \ } \ \ \ \ 75 } k a 0 \ } 0. ) ) ) k .. \ \ ) § / \ w § & 2 a % 0 J ] a 4 2 3 2 0 , f ± El co o & 2 ) CDa # ) \ CB ai \ / k E it e. co( e � { $ ) : s § e - ) § § 0 / 0 ) 0 0 •iD j z ! 2 - A 0 / / } \ \ [ .c ] / \ \ co ( \ \ E \ 0 \ 4- \ I c f O / 0 ] a_ O 2 0 0 < 0 e O / & H 6 a , « : 2 ) f 7 7 - & § ; a ; * i a ( L. L. § E - . _ . \ o t. "C , C = m ! E c . ) ® \ ] 2 \ \ c ) 21 \ m 2 t { / \ ) ]\ % ) 2 .. ) j { -0 c / \ \ ) \ \ j / _ -o § m — / / Z Z / \ 0 \ ) 0 O J ] ) \ < k A G ) { \ ge E-207 - - - . --.. . . , . . . . . . . : . _ � , . . , i ' , i l , i � V • W / ai 2 k 0 \ en E cT) 3 17 j fl •0 \ \ \ \ § \ \ \ \ 0 .c { w \ \ \ / / ) ) ) ° 6 \ 7 ® ' / N \ ) ° \ > \ ) \ R ( 2 k a ) / \ CO t C0R ) $ 7 \ / % j \ k \ \ { \ \ \ \ k / \ .0 { | / K ) f / • / 2 \ CO / • ) \ ( ± § 0 0 \ / k W ) TD tr. 2 ) •• 3-• 0 co ) ) / \ ( 7 rk / ) / e § / \ 3 , 3 - 0 a = 1 o o ) \ 3 # # » o 3 oc - m k \ ) ` — t 0-Dal_ ® ! o e « m / C C C O 0 a / B « § § E w ) a) % § i a \ ) \ / H H e o 0 2 0 § uo a 0 0 E 0 e 0 o - . . - 2 \ 10 0 G & 0 0 { - Cu 2 ; ; * $ a a I. a k { ! o . ) ( ) ( - - _ E ( . � a ) / k a - + ) 7 \ .- k Z a r \ B § } . k { _co-/ } E § \ \ } \ CO ] 3 ) { / § 4 CO 0 \ ) / ) / - \ a A \ Page E-208 e I i L: III i I , [ i i i • N INS I.!+ 4.1 Z x O z O E bm o a 5 co 'E Fs Z it, it e n a I I 0 U c 0 al c .y • ct E E Q 'c e CO W • a - F 0 o• v C y rG U) C C o C W I 1. wn O E c N .Ca) t - N C C o Of O 4... " 00 o m E 0 c Q r0 e o 1 4. h oC) m ti C C C U e y i i I N N Up a P O N N N E Cr a. a. a`. a E o o U 'g N N N 5 • 0 NO cc CI r CD a N t, C E C j, C IQ ry m m O ea) U) c. H Z d' - ti Page E-209 • i NUR( ii 1-25 ",.%:00g EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. ...� Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: June 2, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky COMMENTS RECORDED AT THE TAC/RCC OPEN HOUSE STYLE MEETING 1. Level 2 Grading Results (LAL) "Could an image of what the "limited Access Lane" looks like be added?" "Unlike Transit Highway boards don't have advantage/disadvantages under"notes"" 2. Level 2 Grading Results (CM) "Could Congestion Management" be defined?" • "Add definition next to icons" "Define the different CM strategies" Correct spelling of"improvement" in the GREEN Report Card Box 3. Level 2 Grading Results (ML) "Clarification between Alt NB and Alt DIE" Add "potential"to green report card box"Low impacVPotential".... 4. Level 2 Grading Results (ML) "Make altemative#more prominent (all boards)" "Define acronyms (all boards)" Green report card box:Why"More"when all other Alternatives show"Low Potential?? (last two lines) "Do we need to label these?" circled 119 area on map 5. Level 2 grading results (AL) Blue report card box: "Does not divert " SIC (delete) "Add comment similar to B about capacity) 6. Level 2 Grading Results (NA) ( Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:1032251TAC 200512005 MEETING MINUTESI0602051TAC-060205.doc Page E-210 1NORTH I25 EIS Prt • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. /� Technical Advisory Committee Co/ a�today 18,2005 Page 2 of 12 "CR13 is now continuous from E470 to HWY 14. How does this lend to the "most potential to impact for inland hazardous material & land use" statement? 7. Level 2 Grading results New Highways "Your graphic is misaligned —it doesn't show mead in the right spot. This may be true fort he entire exhibit—check_" Remove the comma from the first bullet on the red report card box 8. Level 2 Grading Results (UC) "Define Expressway* Freeway(or have staff nearby that can)" Correct spelling of Wetlands" in blue report card box 9. Screening of key environmental factors (for BRT) "BRTB good" "Add small note to all "screening of Key Environmental fact (see measurement used • board) or flip chart nearby" In legend box (neutral)for"Needs improvement" 10. Level 2 Grading definitions "Need criteria explanation, 3 major criteria of 1) Purpose & Need such as .... 2) Practicability such as and 3)environment such as "Consider 81/2x 11 handouts of Level 2 grading definitions for public to carry around as they review grading results put screening process on back" "It would be helpful to call out in a smaller box that the color here matches the alternatives color" 2nd bullets "if this is true, why are there no"s" ratings?" 6th bullet"change to "determined that the alternative is too costly, doesn't serve a significant number of travelers, or has the most comparative potential for environmental impacts. Move the "Unsatisfactory" label UP 11. Practicability Screening Information "Consistency—All to 1 decimal or all rounded to nearest integer" "BRT makes better sense" • "How do CR and BRT M&O costs compare to M&O for highway lanes? Federal Highway Administration'Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC1200512005 MEETING MINUTES106a205ITAC-060205.doe Page E-211 iN0RTIII25 ' EIS ,, MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Technical Advisory Committee G�2 May467-2005 • Page 3 of 12 Last bullet ad "commuter rail" after 90% of..... 12.Screening of Key Environmental Factors (for CR) "CRB better service »»»»»»»»???/" "CRG has no community impacts'?" "Add note about difference in noise impacts w/different technologies" In legend add (neutral) 13. Purpose and Need screening information "Need to add comment regarding trips to north metro area— outside Denver->these trips need to be clarified?" "High" confusing" "Long trips —is the lack" "Switch background to major highways" "4,000 trips per day" In legend box: correct spelling of Then to than 14. Project Purpose • Make so reads PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEEDS 15. Purpose & need and Practicability Evaluation (Mobility Continued) "Add #'s and from where to where" "Boldface"Travel Time" "May want to consider shorter limit to better show travel time improvements" First section: Add 2030 to NB PM Peak travel. Second Section: define "best and worst" rating (Best most infrastructure improvements) Worst (few infrastructure replacements) Yellow 6 Gen purpose lanes?? (SH 66 to SH1) Third Section: is this in today dollars? 16. Purpose & Need and practicability Evaluation "Where to where" "By facility Type (not project specific)" "Average" "Does this conflict with chart" "Add HOT/TOLL, 4 Lanes Look" "HOT or GP" Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • !.:103225ITAC12 0 0512 0 05 MEETING MINUTES10602051TAC-060205.doe Page E-212 er gitrtip> 1ORTH I25• EIS � MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee c'r, ,May-t9 2005 Page 4 of 12 17.Wetlands and threatened & endangered species "There is surely much more wetland in this study area then shown. Are you sure? Otherwise, clarify what type of mapped wetlands you are depicting" "Note: Wetland locations do not depict size or configuration of wetlands just location" Preble's not Prebles 18. Existing Land Use and Community Facilities "PVH Trauma Center/Hospital on its way up at I-25/Hwy 34 interchange—NW#corner of Interchange" "On all of these boards— Frederick is located between Dacono and Firestone. CR20.5 is the northern boundary of Frederick." "New Avista Hospital on 287 @ Hwy 42 in Lafayette 19. Farmland "Place all environmental boards in flip charts—too much information" 20. LEVEL 2 GRADING RESULTS (BRT) "Clarification does "u" mean it won't be evaluated as complementary either? (As per the definition?) • "Need legend for red lines" 21. Future Generalized Land Use "Future Post 2030 Generalized Land Use (as illustrated on comprehensive plans)" "The area to the NW of the intersection of 1-25 & Hwy 52 shouldn't show residential for at least 2 miles west of 1-25. Land use Plan is being revised" "Where are the 18,000 residential units (40,000 people) approved or nearing approval in SW weld County east of Mead? They should be factored into the population estimates" Correct spelling of Clarion in the legend 22. Low Income Populations "Transit and hwy are focus of meeting. The environmental info is good, but it's overwhelming can it go into flipchart?" "Some maps have shaded/fuzzy stud are boundary, others have distinct line, need consistency" "Ft. Lupton not low income" 23.AIR QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS I'm planning for the next 3-+ years, the "big picture" must be considered in terms of"air quality". Rocky Mountain National Park as well as other parts of the state is experiencing rising ozone levels — nitrogen deposition—due in part to tail pipe emissions" 24.Screening of Key Environmental Factors • 'Why mixed results (some are unsatisfactory)for AQ?" Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J.1032251TAC12 00 512 0 05 MEETING MINVTES10602051TAC-060205.dx Page E-213 LNORTH I25 EIS M., MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. S Technical Advisory Committee &12 Allay 10,2005 Page 5 of 12 #44B widen to TWO LANES #44C widen to EIGHT LANES Air quality legend: (relates to total vehicle travel) Legend box (neutral) under NI 25. Screening of Key Environmental Factors (for Managed Lanes) #46A converts one lane #42B add one lane #46D add one lane #46E add two lanes #46G move to another board Legend Box— (Neutral) under NI 26.Screening of Key Environmental Factors (Managed Lanes and upgraded classification) #46H This board should have G,H, I, J, K add one more lane #461 add tow more lanes Box.around eagle should be green #39D put on separate board (Neutral) under NI • Comment by Todd F: Why do H & I have the same environmental impact when I have more lanes? Compare to A and B and D and E where there is an additional lanes and more environmental impact? 27. NEXT STEPS: DEVELOP PACKAGES OF ALTERNATIVES Under step 2 Add illustrative over all packages "Are these 3 the only"packages" (combinations) permitted? Or are these only illustrative examples of packages (clarify)?" Correct spelling of practicability Remove screening and add detailed evaluation 28. Level 2 Grading Results BRT "Low ridership is not really compared to other transit alternatives....compared to what? systems? "Consistency: "notes"vs. "Advantages/disadvantages" Orange report card box (add (except for section in Ft. Collins) after* Green report card box add bullet"Right of way available along Mason Corridor in Ft. Collins" • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:103225ITACI200S12005 MEETING MINUTES10602031 TAC-060205.doc Page E-214 177:1; tNOR''H 125 " w~," EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee .BAay 49;2005 Page 6 of 12 29. Level 2 Grading Results HSR Blue report card box—delete and hazardous materials Orange Report card box—delete and hazardous materials 30. Screening of Key Environmental Factors (For LR and HSR) "LRT better for tri HSRB would be too costly 31. Level 2 Grading Results CR "Low ridership is not really compared to other transit alts compared to what'?" Peer Systems" Purple is too close color to blue..use different "Line G south to include connection to airport" Pink report card box—delete 4th bullet and 7th bullet, add bullet connects to corridor preservation for FasTracks" • 32. Level 2 Grading Results CR "All rail alts" "Can we show % active freight rail % inactive % hwy alignment % percent other?" "Low ridership is not really compared to other transit." "Compared to what?" "Peer systems" 33. C advantage "Partially utilized existing rail corridor that can be re-activated" "Should explore what is meant by"mix of transit needs" "Comment on "C" could also apply A& B" 34. Level 2 Grading Results Light Rail "Low ridership is peer based not based on other alts" "Move light rail after commuter rail (put positive first) • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:1032251TAC1200512005 MEETING MINt?ESIo602051TAC-060205.doc Page E-215 \ ; ; � � 0 j ) ' \ \ \ u. o § _ a o § 7 ; C 3 ( C / E § § \ 0 0 • \ . k \ \ / > / \ & \ / \ z « ` \ iillili / \ \ \0 o 0 i ( \o a { ; 1 q » #IM c / k \ � E-') \ ) $ 0 } CL 1.2 C \ . % / a e ] b & y ) ) . ° CO E d o t { / / k '- W '- j e \ C-9 ) / { t o To k . � / / \ \ ( } 45 § \ k § 45 I O , J o e e e A e e. o c o e e e u o ( 2 \ k C. k / ) 7 § / ict $ / 2 m e \ ] $ _ ) ) e ) \ « ) \ 3 § 6 ( o E 2 § ) g \ ( / } ° e k ® 2 » e 3 / ) G § k i 0 \K k \ \ 7 } \ \ / ) \ / \ / 0 \ j CC \ \ Page E-216 I I i I I !. I•A 4 I I I I I iknIel Ch 1 �. W X Co O E a o E O c o o N a) o o ° o o E o- c co c v N E p 3 a) p L C •O 6 a 0 L U N o °U N C Oo EC E 3 N N O PP 'O o @ 3 C @ ° O V c a a) Q a0 p @ a) Ni O` U C .� a CC t }es n C ` a) .C U C ID @ C tl a) O O O ▪1R - Z w a Y D a E Q L a) y g U m o a mmCI o _ �_° E c o 0 W a=) o mc ° E `4� I-°- a Lo c o E E .� K A 2. II O U' 0'� C •Q" c) RI V c Q. 0 RI11 I I v tz c O c o o m .� c ° .• m ° N ca c .@ c Ip w O 0 O J 'O ' O '. o a3 IL i 0 - 1 3 t 3 3 D O O ° `° o p v c c o c `° O 2 O O 2 ❑ ❑ a _ O` ❑ N p 3O a)tl) I` l -; Q U U H LL �— ,— LL U U a LL U ao O S H H rc ❑ 0 � 4 V CU F aCa c o a) Al EE Q O O _ a. 6 > V) O) -' C o a) a7 °1 a) c — C o c..) ID 0 , II H c IH ; 21iUiflu1 " ° r. iII m 2 2 o s `S Page E-217 7 / I I : . ' ! I I . I I l l j l : I : i I 4, 1-1 $ \ 8 7 m p E , § o j 2 _0 g g 6 m E ; \ \ t / \ El c° Cr 8 E ) \ a ( \ e 7 / > & E c \ _6 k > / $ % i / \ 19 tt Itt , ) \ 2 \ \ \ 11111111 R / { \ I a O-. t \ Ii f 0 Eti § } a) j � \ f _i \ a 2 t § \ / » 2 $ k / 8 COL 0 g k \ $ E § ) ( ® / L. o 3 Ea' \ / R « / ) f L. ) \ ( 2 = \ j = \ ) cX 7 g o a % o y J R » w 6 f ± W J U. ) ) "0 ) Z. L.E. / * i Q. / f / / E / c ( Li E H = I® / { ) * a k \ ` § ) k / )E i§ E f - \ ? } \ \ \ - L. ) k § a k \ m & I . a o o / 2 cri ) 3 J ) c w o \ \ k Z ) I 0 j \ cam Ct- m@ E-218 \ r I ' I : II I i i . • 44 q W \ a / co : U o , § 8 \ d § ® [ R [ ` ` r E o4 § . / ( E \ \ ) \ E 03 I / E \ to E % { \ \ \ C• .O O / d - / O E - 3 Ct 6 ) / 2 / / ° ° g / k B r § \ \ \ } { § q / i ] i } Eg ■ e CO ) ) t > { { » ) § { \ Q - CL E § § > 2 a # ) g a 0 2 2 I d $ co § ) ) OIn k K * e $ 0 0 C ` » t R S ) / » E 2 » f a \ 0 & ° ! \ \ = I / E j \ O \ \ \ r \ \ >•.) \ \ 2 \ . $ S 0 E 8 \ G / CO & / \ [ ; 2 % § , cc ° 0 A O ] » 0 m 0 0 7 0 e 0 / ( e w - k 2 « § ) a) ` i i t E. $ \ ; ■ § | ■ 2 \ a a a a 4 ts \ | 0 ( % J ; E ( � ° i -0 45 e \ \ / t } / } ) _ \ \ E 0 3 \ } } { .0 ( \ \ \ \ \ / 12,>, ) 2 a t % f ) z } / \ \ M 2 0 \ W 2 k \ k 3 § 5 a \�� , G Page E-219 I ' I I � � $ 0 § E E to 5 \ \ j , / o • E 8 E > ® ° ) W § b § 2 0 / E o { 6 / \ \II O 2 7 0 \ j O • \ ~ \ / ( t o \ ® f ® \ \ @ k / ) \ . k \ $ 7 { f 7 k k \ ) w & k / . ) \ \ \ . / > k \ k / i. , 45 ) co / 2 \ iiM / / O1 k 0 § [ i ) .-1 ' # < { y / ) Ill E _ E § . a k k k § o / 1" I- / \ 2 § \ ) ) § 4 a ] j @VIkk 8 m E m \ 7 o \ tz To 3 3 3 / � /\ k \ \ E f d k \ k ( 60 / ! / - I- e d o mom ] o m 0 0 § CO o 0 E o ` k \ 2 G 13 § ) \ & 0. a « § E ) 0 . co § ; 2 e . E c o ) Go cu 2 / ) 3 2 6 ® ca # k \ k co .— 1 � ) f / / ® 2 S a § j § f \ 0 }f E [ c 2 / « t7 § 3 f 2 f \ c § Z (..9 o IY - 2 / 0 m e < f 0 z 0 ) § ) Q FM ge E-220 y y I ! I 1 . i I � i t::,ing 0 M k rti \ El o { \ ) / \ \ % N. 2 ( 2 { 0 \ m / , . , { e I / Zi f ) § } Et / ) \ ca Ce al } a Ill 2 I c ® c 0 0 i & ( a Wm _ 2 � 15 0 j / } ft se ii:. k \ } 4- / 7 S ` It g e o o § \ ) © « $ i \ & 2 § \ 1 . _o 0 \ o — ( ) ] e ] § & • / e m f 2 e & ; ) / k ) §f § § F. - eg 2 ) \ / ] a 5 * ; Page E-221 NORTH 1-23 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: July 21, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Introductions 1. Schedule • Now in Level 3 of Alternative Screening. • Start DEIS next year. 2. Comments Received at June Open Houses • • Leslie C. — Summary of Open House Comments and Small Group comments received since February. • Concern with travel to DIA. • Greeley concern with US 85. • Connecting bus service. • Results of Household Survey. • 18 Small Group meetings since February. • 4 Open House Public meetings were successful. • Contact Leslie C. (PRACO)with requests for future Small Group meetings. 3. Household Survey Results • Response rate of 33% was very good. • Learned a lot about special purpose trips on 1-25. • Synopsis of results was presented. • Analysis is on-going. • Results will be incorporated into Level 3 Travel Forecasts. 4. Purpose and Need • June 14 draft chapter of the Purpose and Need was distributed for review. 5. Packaging/Level 3 Process • After the packages have been revised in response to TAC comments, they will be mailed to the RCC. ( • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • J:103225105.TACI2004 thru 200612005 TAC1072J0SITAC-072J05.doe Page E-222 NORTH 1-25 471,S0 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee May 19,2005 Page 2 of 9 6. Preliminary Packages • Holly M. presented a comparison of capacity that various alternative types would provide, and then presented the 10 preliminary packages. Julie M. added that highway alternatives were used as building blocks for the packages. • Examples of queue jumps for buses in other American cities will be included in the updated package. • Station locations in Longmont are being coordinated with alternatives in the US 36 DEIS. 7. Question & Answers: • Have you considered an alternative with bus service from 1-25 to DIA? o We will test 1-25 bus service into DUS and also via E-470 to DIA. • Why no commuter rail along US 85? o That was screened out as infeasible due to limited rail line capacity (now has over 28 trains a day), and also due to less demand (fewer population/employment centers). • May consider a scenario if freight travel is moved to the east. However, for UP the line would still be a valuable. • • Comment: Investigate this further since CDOT has expressed interest in the concept. o We will • Comment: Try Package 5 with HOV. o We will. • Must HOV be all or nothing with regards to having to go all the way to SH14? Why not take HOV north to SH 66 and then 6 General Purpose lanes north to SH 14, with parallel arterials between SH 66 to SH14? • Why did you pick congestion (unmet demand) as the criterion for comparison? You should have other graphics for other criteria. o Agreed. What was presented is an example application of one criterion. It is not the evaluation of the packages, only the methodology for developing packages. • Suggested that a chart be created for each purpose and need category. • Suggestion that color-coding of improvement types be consistent for all packages. • Package 7 modification: o "Limited Bus Service" on US 287. Central Commuter Rail, Bus Service to SH 119. Take HOV all the way down. Take limited bus service out of Greeley in Package 5. o This alternative would allow bus service to develop the patronage, and then expand to rail when demand is there. • Is only providing a regional bus and nothing else enough transit? How do Packages 1 and 4 meet the Purpose and Need? • Comment: Recommend replacing BRT with limited bus south to SH 119, with bus options to Longmont and Denver. o This suggestion prompts the issue of project Purpose and Need. This will be further investigated. • Comment: The feeder bus system is not represented by any lines in the package graphics. • Is the project team receptive to the sub-alternative suggestions, such as a 7A? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J 103225105.TAC12004 thru 200612005 TAC10721051TAC-072105.doc Page E-223 NORTH 1-25 �r EISi MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Technical Advisory Committee May 19,2005 Page 3 of 9 o Yes • • As part of the next step, reapply Level 2 data to these packages. o We can do sensitivity tests, for example, 'What happens when....?" • The TAC was asked if these 10 packages are close to addressing the full range of options. The consensus was that 4-7 packages would be a reasonable range.. • What filter are we using to get from 10 alternatives to 4, 6, or 8? o We will complete the Value Engineering session and based on that input, and then assemble a new set of packages for TAC consideration in August. 8. Action Items • Send Toni Ogboli (CCD) an e-copy of the Small Groups Presentation. Next Meeting: Thursday August 18, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 1:30 -3:00 PM • • 1 Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TAO2004 thru 200612005 TAC10721051TAC-072105.doc Page E-224 . . . i i I i l ; I / \ i i i I Wyk � ± Q / n co , 8 _ \ \ co § / 0 ) /e g E •E ( / 6 / \ am \ •\ • \ Q § \ @ ° .2 } o \ \ \ \ \ \ � CO, ) 7 \ \ ! § F a 3 t 2 z ! Fa a c \ / t ) E § ( ~ ] & \ ) { w % e 2 A \ o - =O o \ E ) 3 \ f \ } co or ci • W c _ ? / 2 or co / ) ) • � � $ # j j j ) ) ) « k C @ \ § ® E / a) ] / K R \ \ \ � \ o e o C O ) \ gbo \ k } . C 46 ) Ho O \ } 0 \ o \ ± j c o o o H O e 0 a. o o O e ( o u o - $ . \ { 7. j 2 ) co t L. ( \ / co, / % e co ~ = e 2 k ) © } / ] - -c \ 2 § -c { ) ( \ ) ) } \ ^ u - & « E \ f I « m e a . / ° k To c9 § m a % f E 7 b 7 ® _ O) ° co c 2 a) - •-. 0 a / / CD N 3 C f / - 0 ) \ O \ 0 0 0 0 ) \ j Page E-225 !� j e I W • N 3 g E E 0 O a U C > ZO 0 0 co' N O U E U C O O O, . O N O O in' U c -6 U O c 7 U C C O C O U -O U• — E p y o o o w 3 3 ��- 0 vi m m m 0 a� c 0 we @ E 3 (0 'o a e a •0• —vii o 3 m @o o $ ��' o n Q V v- G U? N L 5 C "o C V I g a> m c "- E E �a n t vcil c tl U (C -6 C =� co E c U' cd W 0 U w Et, F- n. u_ ° E E g, ti d Q II . Y U • O 0 Co P. O a .. • C C Cl)a 12 F I a b w oC 2 C o a) - .. O N c o c Z• N o. C .s 6 N c O C N 4 o C C E > > m o c O m -J to o U '� C N H 0 o c .. C 0 0 0 tea) o � m u. O Ct w F- F w < C 0 O c w L' O .� 3 D 3 3 3 O O ° ., o p -o c ° c o co cc 0 U H e IL H FO- U- O0 U U a.. .C5 m U H cc O (5 < 1 r w a *4 m. 44 4. C i Yr F a Gi ¢O1 CD CI) CD a a) N 0 H a` a a a` I s E Q a F 0 3 T L' h o L O U - '0 C ., > N N .C co To O] N C C N N N •ai _E Y CS n LL C y N CO C N -O E wcp Co C Cl. -0 w C - I al.c C6 a o > c o.c EcLum r a C a a — — c c m r c '�co v C F- Z f!) < Q m M a Fes- Q d m d m H Y li -Oi O 2 n s S Page E-226 < . . . � . � . � . . . . . , . ; ° < • ? - i �/ i.i� � � I r � � i \ ; i ; i : � i ; • � q Q / E / 0 0 / 0 § _ § U) > m E jci •° [ [ \ / •; \ \ \ \ o ` d | s { § ( . a 2 k C 0 \ \ ) \ \ / \ \ / ® ) \ \ / \ \ a ) / { i2@@ k E ® \ / a 0 {{ ( ) z { i o 0 Z / t / I. ) S P. • , 0o \ # \ § } j I 70 ) ) E - 2 » ® •2 0 » 2 n \ 4 e 0 o { > § & I o ] co ] f § 0 0 / E § 0 ° ) } \ t 4- 0 G � a_ t » O 3 -C Z.: CO p C H 0 W / L. D / \ CC e b e b o COo ) Z H H f 0 CO - a -1,°1 :`,' . ° { { k Z. Z. Z. ) j @ ; 2 2 § § § - $ a a a « a k E _ 2 oo 2 { E E k - = 2 f a_ 8 * ) _ Z n § # R « f »Fi { ] CO/ » / / / § § 3 / ] c 2 3 E a' e - - _ // 2 « co 0 } / o / ) 5 - \ } 2 coo j 2 z / ) Page E-227 j I i I I I t In Cr)W • Cl, �/ 15 7 W O C 7 UO Z d p E • 6 = o y U O CO 0 O0 =0 a) • O U 0 R O _c • a > O 7 L o. N > N C U p N O O O a) o a o o vi q E C 6 y a.• E : 5 -0 a E i m E N E u ti 'C U O 7 U lQ c c O a- a7 0 -� 'a 1.4 CD CO a °O @ a H > 0 c " a> c o a 5 c c o .• > • w- a. '� > 0 O 3 3 tl pH2O E @ c -6, c o " • co E a o a a) a E - m c n ur r v > a _ o O U y -o 'w O C o y " O E o = co C Et:, N c0 L .>. tl) o w — > O W 3 E a, cn E N 'a Q a 0 a O co `e A I 0 U CO C O o C. co Cu d .g a 12. C O E o CI .g E a) O C O C 9 o 0 m U Co CO o 5 E = -o = c =" m U o > 0 No I N C O .a) U -c U O U O - w 8 Q • co (7 r '�+ I— � in r CO W F o m c u) E.E. o c 0 0 0 0 �j o reo o p 'o ,� Oo o 0 o m o o ,. o s 9 Q F- U _, a 0 CO a- a a 5 i- U F- h r t- S I - o 1 ro it u a U) U) h a a a E Q F E h Co 7 UT V a a" l h ti a . C UCI) CD E a aS a) S� > o E y E co O w 2 P L _ ≥ a C c f U N . a d d O a — 3 N "OO E O U N 7 > > F l6 m co co C co N C E C O ` a C t V L C O F C C o m CO O O O E o v m m E c ° s = o 0 o aci M F-- g Z U Y U` co c 13 � Q m co in a' -9 (7 ❑ c. Page E-228 \ / y I I . . ' I I . . . ) I I Ii �#\ lb ril 41 Q / \ / E % j O j ) E \ 0 / W 0 \ \ k \ ) R •° c § / { k \ { f j ) ( k_ \ \ \ k ) ® » j ° / R k k \ : \ k # k a) ) \ \ Cl) a a E \ 4 \ \ 2 t i \ \ o \ ) } j k \ c co ) f a 3 f ) 3 = j 5 { » 2 a • LI CD ra \ I / \ J J ( § 6 ) R. To \ / : \ � \ k O \ 7C / CO / § / \ *. � � \ C ! � 7 ) ) A P. f \ \ a ) \ * f ) ..- ® ' _ % ` k \ § O O k /) � co( Cl) ( ) » \ C I \ ) c t H H 0 0 2 O § ] o m o o e co O O o co H 2 / ; ) { k ) { i > - * § / \ ) ) / ) \ \ o o ] G § ) > q c / « - ) , co O � ® k a # § f k f \ { k \ m co \ ) ) g � E -0 k \ , \ t C 2 \ ) \ ! ) { / j \ / Z ) { Z § 0 m 0 \ \ 0 ) 0 ) / a 3 -, \ / ge E-229 \z / : i I • I I I ; . I j � �Q . 0 / / / k E q \ / ( § t.ct — _ CO wo w / 4 2, 2 k % 6 -13 o \ -- Cr \ CL ) 0 ) 7 cn • ( - { % < 0 ° } a ; o k ± a / ) ) ® 13 0 ° ) { a)I ) \ \ ® e. O O4 C \ \ B c o ) \ 2 \ ) >, ) Page E-230 NoR1 rt 123 • EIS fr,t MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: August 18, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. July Meeting Follow-Up ▪ Craig G. (Carter Burgess) explained the ways to use Queue jumps/Transit signal priority • to improve bus travel times on highways like US 85 and US 287. • Gene P. remarked on the importance of getting buses in and out of traffic lanes so that roadway capacity is not reduced. • Craig G. explained the Freight Rail Relocation concept studied by CDOT: 96 miles of new rail from Cheyenne to south of Pueblo, far east of I-25. • 50% decrease in number of freight trains on UPRR, from 19 to 9 per day. • CDOT study did not draw a clear conclusion on the benefit of CDOT financial participation in the freight relocation. 3. Packaging Updates • A Value Engineering process was conducted to provide a fresh look at potential alternatives for the Draft EIS. Copies of the Final Value Engineering report will be available at next meeting for anyone interested in the details. • Value Engineering proposals have identified key elements for consideration: auxiliary lanes, multimodal transfer centers, clarifications for Purpose & Need, funding and constructability. • The number of packaged alternatives for Level 3 Screening has been reduced from 10 to 8. • Holly M. and Julie M. presented the 8 alternatives. Descriptions of each have been added on the back of each graphic. • Different types of Congestion Management measures would be provided on 1-25 and "Throughout the study area." • Changes to the packages presented at last month's meeting include: o Package 1 now extends bus service into Ft. Collins 1. A suggestion was made to inter-line this with existing bus service. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TAC12004 do 200612005 TAC08180ATAC-081805.doc Page E-231 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee August 18,2005 Page 2 of 10 2. The intention in Level 3 is to test ways to increase ridership 3. A suggestion was made to present the text where it could be read at the same time as viewing the Package map. o Package 2: Two Toll lanes with Commuter Bus 1. Gene P. would like to see the spur to DIA extended west beyond US 85 to 1-25. o Package 3 now has BRT service in the bus lane 1. It should be noted on the map that BRT would only operate along 1-25 o Package 4 has commuter bus service in general purpose lanes on 1-25, with A-B service to DIA-DUS. o Package 5 consolidates HOT, HOV, BRT into a single type of Managed Lanes 1. For consistency, show "Add 2 GP lanes" (north of 66) instead of"Six GP Lanes". 2. The northern terminus of Managed Lanes, SH 68 or SH 14, should be determined by the projected traffic volumes. 3. A BRT route to DIA is not yet shown, but could be added if it tests well. o Package 6: 6 GP and Central Commuter Rail 1. Will test the value of a rail connection between North Metro Line and Longmont. 2. Phasing of transit implementation will not be analyzed until the FEIS. • o Package 7: 6 GP + West C. Rail (along US 287) o Package 8: Transit provided alone all corridors 1. Feeder routes between Ft. Collins, Loveland, and Greeley are not shown because they are not capital improvements. 2. A suggestion was accepted to add dashed lines on the maps to illustrate connectivity of the transit alternatives. 4. Transit Stations • Julie M. presented the site maps that show the %1-mle radii for potential station locations, and the station site criteria and design criteria. • There will be 3 station types: Neighborhood, Park-N-Ride, and Transit Center. Most will be new Park-N-Rides. • Station locations may be shifted during Level 3 analysis, but the number of stations will likely remain constant. • A station at I-25/SH 60 should be considered. • A station near SH 7 or E-470 should be considered. • Add FasTracks stations for North Metro line to the "BRT Commuter Bus" map. • Julie M. will send TAC members the size characteristics for stations shown on handouts. 5. Transit Station Working Groups • Kim P. presented the handout, which proposes four geographic working groups. • The role of the groups is advisory. They will meet every other month from October 2005 to April 2006. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation .1:103225105.TAC12004 thru 200612005 TACd18/8051TAC-081805.doc Page E-232 NORTH I-25 s � • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee August 18,2005 Page 3 of 10 • ▪ Membership on the working groups is open: TAC/RCC members are welcome; residents can volunteer or be recommended by TAC, CDOT, or the Project Team. 6. Transit Funding Concepts • Gina M. presented six possible sources of transit funding. o Formation of a Regional Transit Authority (like RTD, collects sales tax) o RTD's district could be expanded to portions of our study area o RTD could, through a single private contractor, Design, Build, Operate and Maintain new facilities, to provide service further north. o Joint Powers Authority—government entities could form a separate board (like BART in San Francisco) o Transit Development Board could be created—as has been done in San Diego o CDOT could fund and operate new transit service 7. Other Matters • Holly M. presented the "Level 3 Alternatives Development Analysis Matrix" • Different packages will answer various questions on which types of improvements will • operate best Next Meeting: Thursday, September 15, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 1:30—3:00 PM Topics: > Refinement of alternative packages Interchanges • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TAC12004 thru 200612005 TAC108/8051TAC-08/805.doe Page E-233 . . . . . . . \ : • < � \ \ I ' I I i ' %/ In Si . W co / o 0 0 E CO \ \ ° I o = IS 2 E e 8 2 E a in en / \ \ \ \ \ § � \ •§ 13 -2 \ in \ \ .- \ \ a / \ . \ \ / / \ \ _CD ) E E © \ { IA % H $ j \ ) rc). o - 0 0 \ E ) ®f ± i W E ) Cc!) k 2 j 0o 0 co ) ca $ a / G B ± ( _ _ ) $ y / j j g m ) 7 » O e G t = S ) E b = ] / d \ m ET } ? \ 45 \ \ 15 j g ) g 2 \ / $ k o \ 2 ) \ o • \ / } 2' } \ \ ; / Pat 0 o 0 o H § o H o a o 0 o A ( 8 k ] c. 7 7 C) \ ; § 2 c. / \ ( a \ § t. / ` c o § co ` f o { - ° j C e. Ta 06§ § ) < N ) E j § o 0 2 O c \ 0 t f E # ) / I \ a « a / o 6 \ k ) 5 < r% # b y Cl) C / / CO N / / A f CO 7 \ C00 ) \ / ) 0 0 co 0 \ Page E-234 a : I i t i Flit I i I I I I i . . _ uy • in cri ,_L4 W 0 O U U C > > J U U O` o of E 6 O U O a O U C c O G Q E O' c 'O a `o 0 3 a) L c U E o -o y a O 7 a o a) O 'V N y N a o a .a 0 4- 7 d U O - :E t @ E m m g c 0 o c E -O @ o 0 a c ._a m o 0 0 = E To U! o O V @ > C C C cn N CJ "' N c� N N N w Cl) a c 3 a r a o = a m o W W 0 a)i o mo E w �o—I U -, iI . Pia O)C 0• R d Q ID CO F N ,y ~ 3 w v cZ 0. o 3 N o .` O) p ,_ y N O N 0 .T. S C N O C N C C a) Ct E C b O o a. 0 o m o "O asCD E_ 0 0 ty) O m V `� ii J 'C t t a. CC Ci 4` 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 m I-ea o o -' _ 2, o o e Q in U U F- F- F- L.L. U U U U J U Z U L.L. U m 4, m a 20- (1) c a c a) c e c F m w a) an d y o a) N Cl) 2 cu co "' Q a a a a s a ti E _ O 7 0 $ t. N M1 o O co m d S • O _N N C C __ a N a N O Q• a W7 SR � N d u_ c w (6 1 CO •> d O Cca C y E O C 7 O u_ -O N O_ (� _ C N U I > 3 N 7 co O Cl) c O N p O N Ocl- 0 N O a) C -t C , F- Q Z 2' -) CO < Q CO -) H E' d m 0 U Q d m F- Page E-235 • H W A 0 O z > E = Y y 7 = N > ` O O C = O 0. `- ' • _c U U C •• tt O C O Er O` H 6 a) C RUC N E O 0) h 3 O >O N 'Y (0 @ U L O O O 7 N n) U E d I) @ @ o o C Tii 0 c .- c Q C U C U p Ur 7 _ _ @ @ O 4 Y NL. O L a) C C @ co E a L L co Y O "O N N N 43U U N W o E E _i Y CO o E E E o x a v' O 0. O. 0 .-1:1 C • 0 Z (0 `a m o Sa V 43 4) C 12 U) It. - Ir 0 -O v C ti o E N 0 o 6 O > cc; ICI E N • . C N C U N N Oc j C c Y f0 N — Nc .C a O J co F- O O = > 7 l2 € O I = �, w 0 w N L1 C U �«. O O O 7 0 a CL _co mI-- ii c9 -r_ 0 N E C O Da C p H 43 M E M O ��o o aO1i .y v o o m E d ° Q 0 HO U m Q I- O 0 IY I- U U U .�° Z I-- v o d r 6 a w C) CC) C) m C�) C) h x a a a co a E R a a ti E O o O e 0 a' a L INC' C O N 2 > o on 0. C O O N E E _ c a) O O N .C N N fi r Q N 'O E -15 > C(to U L Y U U L 7 J L- ea O J O: • 0 y d 1 2 > t •-�i ) Y Y Y Y a 2 2 N h L J E C C CU L % L >. O U N 'O 4, >, M F y j (6 N p N 7 (0 f0 U N M 7 N U l N C M U N M I- Q Z Y li -) C7 = CD t 0 m m C F- m C7 I > -°i s Page E-236 zz iI ? I \ . . § y \ ; i , . : : � q Q / « _ j lifi 2 § \ / o , § ) \ / § > ) co 0 . ) y ° \ E 2 6 \ f \ @ 3 f \ } \ \ \ •\ ` \ 1•_)\ \ \ / / WIT 7 / (« • u 2 / » ( = a t & % \ ) / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ { \ ) { k ± ) ! — ) co } Cl. \ § ) at' 3 ! » @ / 11 / » » E a k § \ ) . / \ o 0 0 k % ® ` ) \ k ® e d e / 2 \ ® / k f } » « CO § § Cr k ( t \ } 't e / 3 J g 5 0 80 & o ] z 0 0 \ ] } a ` a G { ) ) k { ) k Z. \ I ; ;L. aN b \ & § ° \ \ \ ) § \ ) e \ \ } ® \ - % k f / k / e a i•-,a) al g e J I \ { k ) } J \ } I C \ 0 E \ / ) } } 0 \ / 0 0 \ ( Page E-2 e I, 44; F I 1 I i I I I I H w z Cl) E-4_, 6 0 z E o' E O = a to r o0 . to o 0 o•ki o C 0 = N O N 'O -o a• O 6 _ c E y -o E = yIHIHfliU " c O16° o a1 c ... v _` nO 73 ca o ) IFa in o C7 ' c, 3 z -, c n d C) 1 O a • n o 4. 0 a CO d _ yy a 8 a > L c o C ` o _ U = c N c d C c `1 N y L O O E = c = m CJ ... O > p c c E C b Z O = O O J > a) = N O C C c N U OV A ,s2 U a U U W L Q .c fn i5 _ q m c0 tp "mam it w E O p •.-. w 0 w V-- y... J O -c •� tl O 0 O O O O ,- V-.. S _°'o o m m o c a a c Q a 0 0 k o - o 0 o m o o m o m 0 o ° b Q m U o Q o H O H H H H H u.. F- H U o v 4 13 ci• CD C) Z.aE. d h a) GC) aa)) aa)) a Et a a` a F E o 0 U e (E. O L a) tU E c e N 0 c p a) 5` > o O 4 = N t .` .> c c a) O] T 4i w d v m m c Fm H c m t C7 0 • N U co co c as E C t O 'c ® c N U N H ¢ Z (n CC -Oi Q CO V) m d' U` D � fl Z 2 Page E-238 s< --- -- a ii \ 2 \ / \ : , ; I : 2 I . , ma : • q � \ 0 / . \ / 4 \ § 0 ; ) E § ° c c \ { E : 13 \ 5 \ / . O \ 0 \ ) ct e e \ CO ® CO® S ` & ! k >. / $ CO \ \ \ § / 4 CO \ . 0 c \ -, a \ -c ©f cs 1 c \ ) f \ _ 4 • 0 } \ co \ 2 \ \ \ ) 2 ) \ 0 45 a , ) ± f % # & m % 7 / } o m § ) / 2 ( 2 ( 0 ) 7 / ) 0 ; E e = a = ® co CD - \ 43 O = f 0 ( \ = 0 \ ® $ o } k k \\ \ { \ ( ) ) p » 0 \ \ { \ } \ ) « } Ct 306 ] 0 a 0 co a. co O O O O I— r a. ) 2 / - - / ! m )° { k Si 7 S. Cl) Cl) Cl) 2 airci »E t a a s 0, 0 § 0 c \ § co a / \ ) N } 0 ) � f _t 0 { CO \ ) ) 2 ) ) #• / \ \ cCO/ ) c \ ) e CO ) / 2 ) / 2 CO x 0 / -, a ) CO j / CO« 2 f / ) H I \ j Page E-239 1 I I I [ III I keit- '/� AY. 1 F; • H W O Z bj H ig a n Q Z n w E f.. tl d Q II 1 y U c o Q N 0 • F0 n ti a b IO `a A .y r 1 G N O o w S Q a u m v b .ez‘Q o CD a 67 G C) t E Q E o o c≥ 1 0 N o N 0 $ Q N f< U m CD • L J E c ry U ill N D E Z s i Page E-240 NORTH 1-25 ' ` • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: October 11, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Package Design Development • Tom A. referenced the highway information in the handout for the eight Packages of • Alternatives for Level 3, and covered the Level 3 Design Summary memo. • The intent is to establish a consistent application of design considerations. • A single alignment for horizontal control and vertical profile were established to compare the eight Level 3Packages. Potential transit station locations have been added. • No new frontage roads will be considered in Level 3. Deletion of some frontage roads will be considered during the DEIS. • Members were encouraged to comment on the memo, before (via e-mail) at the next meeting. • Craig G. presented the transit update on design development, describing the process to determine where grade separations for commuter rail will be required. To date, it appears that only US 34 will need one. • No sites have been identified for transit maintenance facilities. • All train routes under consideration would connect to (interline with)either of the two FasTracks lines, in Longmont or Thornton. • Craig G. described some of the physical characteristics (stations, platforms, crossings)of the Commuter Rail and BRT. • Dave M. asked where cut-and-fill re-grading would be needed to achieve the maximum 2 1/2% grade for commuter rail. There are three identified locations. • Gene P. stated that some commuter rail systems can climb more then 2 '/2% grades. He encouraged considering these types of options as part of the evaluation process: the costs and impacts of cut-and-fill construction, and new transit technology that can climb steeper grades. 3. Transit Station Working Groups and Station Location Updates • Kim P. reported that the four previously conceived groups will be combined into two for • the evening meetings that will be held in October, December, and February. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation ✓:103225105.TA012004 Ow 200612005 TA01I01/0SITAC-10IIOS.doc Page E-241 NORTH 1-25 t'ir ;4Ii EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee October 11,2005 Page 2 of 9 • She encouraged TAC members to review her one-page handout and to suggest names of anyone who might represent their communities. • Jennifer M. presented the changes in locations for commuter rail, BRT, and commuter bus stations to improve travel times and ridership. • Debra B. (Broomfield) asked for a consideration of a commuter bus station at SH 7. Gene P. also expressed strong support for that. • The next step will be to apply evaluation criteria to potential station sites. 4. Evaluation Criteria for Level 3 Screening • Tom A. stated that the three categories of criteria are the same as for Level 2: Purpose and Need, Practicability, and Environment considerations. • Tom A. referenced the handout, soliciting comments by e-mail or at the next meeting. • Vicki M. asked if the criteria are weighted, asking if the Purpose and Need deserves greater consideration. Gina M. replied that all alternatives still under consideration have met a threshold for the Purpose and Need. • Dave M. confirmed with Gina M. that the criteria approach for this EIS is consistent with those of other EIS's. • Gina M. urged members to tell the project team if they want any other criteria applied, as the evaluation process is underway. • 5. Interchange Planning Process • Todd F. presented his memo, dated October 5, 2005. • He covered the guiding principals for Level 3 screening for"Access Planning", and then described the five steps in the process. • Steps after Level 3 screening will include the DEIS, the FEIS, and CDOT's independent "1601" process. • Dave K. asked if the LOS criteria for a new interchange should be higher then that for reconfigured interchange. Bob F. clarified the question, asking Dave if LOS criteria should be applied across the board for minor improvements, reconfigurations, and new interchanges. • Gene P. made the point that new interchanges will require funding commitments before they can be added to any alternative. • Dave K. expressed concern with the adequacy of LOS D. • Bob G. stated that LOS D in 2030 will be LOS A or B for many years until then. • Dave M. offered that we could consider both interim and 30-year future Levels of Service. • Dick L. commented that considering two levels of service in Level 3 adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the process. • Steve C. asked for the working definition of LOS. Todd F. said it's for both AM and PM peaks. 6. Public Comments Update and Future Town Hall/Public Meetings • Kim P. called attention to the 8 %z x 14 packet with recent comments, and to the one-page memo listing public meetings scheduled in January and February. • Any questions on these meetings should be addressed to Kim P. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation TAC-l0l/05.doc Page E-242 NORTH 1-25 5.;41,4'1,' EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee October 11, 2005 Page 3 of 9 Next Meeting: Thursday, November 10, 2005 Region 4—SH 402 Loveland Residence Office (Subject to change) 1:30 -3:00 PM • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation TAC-101I05.doc Page E-243 I I I I N • O,_, W cn o o E o zo - 0 o c� 0 E o • -6 0 J oo o v o o o Q o m O 2 J 0 (•/" a) Q c N E 0 EO C o U O J E El? N m > p p O 'O E p o E 6 J m O` C G O O a1 O c .OO'a7 O 3 m o N N L N a) y d Y V V N g O I - E m a) :E. U E o E Y, E o -0 ti c o .G '�° coo 0 0 oo 2 ° ai •o W m I— (n .O 'O W Y a Y co o 'O E C 4 ri Q I C m D I, E a c v W �° _s _o y o y 2 m m 6" n a o 2 r d U •1 Q W2 a Z y Z H 0 d 0ti `a u • i' o U a a] b N >, r- 5, G N a) E y G N G N E U m b N J p G ,07 m E N 'C N J C! p w y c > 0 O W M d no m w Gccr- o '� m o W O C7 a� o o "eo al O O m c O p E c c c o U o O E ' co U I=i. O U U m Fp li U H O Er U 0 O F H v h 4 13 0 C G 4.C C C `4 "" "" e E. 10 C y at chi) a) y y yyd y o of a! al o E 0 0 O c e 2` N E c o a) ca y ti o o N y al t U O E U .y.. C 3S o m c m 3 c r ¢ "! Y c m CO m FA c m a) m E o E m a) o E o 'E • 6 — ti Q Q c m y c0 a) aci �° m o U CD 0 ` U c `` c m E Q a) y m m N m m U U o L D Em �_ E m m .O L- a T O] co c o U aS c — L N '- CC N H O Z N I— m 1 O C Y -, O Y -�_t U' (n U p p o Page E-244 • ___T.._ .�.. . • _.. .. �. _ ._ _-�.._ _ a;' • N 4 t W co O o U UE 6 Z16 . EELCo co N oJ O U 'C 0 O' E _ c >' O U a) U E c O E C al a a 0 3 a) = .c c 0 0E 0' o .D aa)) 3 a) 0 0 c o o 0 @ w i @ ns m @ 3 c c a o `o 13 U '� 'O N O' O 3 @ _ E w a) O Q O' O -2 'C @ . c @ 0 @ N •U 2 ai C N N a3 w- 0' .- E " UV tl `m 3 Y Z o a E Q co Et(' O -O 0 a) -o 'm a O — a) W w a=) o m E 4` F-- v -, m a a- a m n ri. O a) o m m c ❑ O co O Ill CI arQ. 0 ctl.m e ti e v v v O a m 2 o 3 o co w o a c a) cel c C .S E c a) m `c' v0i o s_ co o o W n c o o c E O0 co = O E' 0 0 0 C !no -0 CO J cn -) D N O 'N O 0 U - n r.i ❑ O O O m O i N it J a w c 0 Q O O 0 C C C O O a) O E E .C O a) ,g a ❑ o x o 0 x ❑ ❑ m 'c E L-..' ° Q ow ❑ o U H LL F- F- LL O O O U _I U z U U a o Li 13 0 cD U 1+ +.� w ..4 w w r w e a a) a)a) a) o aa)) aa)) C7 CC) C) o a) a) aa)) N N (0 C))til d (I) t ` o t a` a` a` a Q. Q. a .a a E ,-. E o 0 a' co la CD'0'>n in a N 3 N O) C N = c aai a) � N c m W = N 5 o Se m o E 3 N C Q 0 'O W Q .0 LL C N aS CO co 2 C D o C co 0 m ❑ W E Y m �? c c C� co as C7 m = E. a) a) W LL as LL LL a) O U' (' CO o -512 a G a) C C W CO 0) c -o a) O. O 0) C d (7 a) ro > .O C a3 c 10) L 'O CO. _CO ' C 'O — C F- O Z ❑ a --)) m < a m 2 0 I-- CC d m 0 2 O Q a IS s s Page E-245 S Ln N 4. ,.!4 W • • x o O _ Co Z O N 7 C• N z J C > O C O 00 O II �- O O' E U C • C O C 0 y vi a) 2 E 0 ° E o N o m > m '— cz o Y o a) o 0 3 a) o = p a. p 0 L o E n a o@ g 6 E o 8 o ii € s a ° -_ 0 m m c p w n Q N L N C O O Y @ @ N az @ ) o Z C C a) C O Y 'O CO N @ 1 L -C,-, CD Y O N 1 N O U p O o W LL . E E j Y ❑ <a p E E E E > l q I 0 C3 C 0 o 4' @ Oa _ e F • ya N It _ I Etc- -vs C a= o o E No - o a � � 2 n U m Y C ❑ co_ C a p p 'C a) N C coN U Y aoi r a) n c5 e O7 CO ~ O 5 > > r o n :��.. 0 w m it C O w O O LL 0 ° U O 0 0 w O N O ,,_ 0 O p Z m [1 'tho O 3 — t O E 3 0 c6 ❑ Ua c _o O c E c ❑ o p 118 y p a o F- o ❑ L �_ et n Q U i I- Q 0 U m Q I- U U O. I- U U U � Z I o k' o y *' w w yr w Z U a a) d W N y CD n C y yl y y o a Cl. a` a` a a E Q E..1 E h U cg 0 C L N .> OS C O E C p N To— N N a) 5 Q a -c E d o N N > s .Y N in -C _C ai Ca C r U C Y C U O L N a) ` t- V-- J m7 m` °) o a>i o p Y o ? v g • c m d = = 2 '> y o N Y Y c Y a o L d E l6 C ca' U Y L a) Y "O N f6 'O N U l6 N L N ' N N O CU > r > a - ` j C y Y .". 1- O Z Y LL - U` 1 2 0 2 Cu ❑ m 0 J ir I- ❑ U' Page E-246 \ \ I ; , \ , I I 1 ; I , . \ . L<m 4 Q / \ co Z $ E j \ 2 ) q : § ) ) } c •a co W Cl) \ _ / / di CO } j e § ! ; / k \ � ' # 2 o § § { k k k % / § ' } R a ) a / ( 4 ) _ / \ { / 7 c w Lo ! . 0 n o r / m ) \ \ ) \ \ } co / } \ \ \ a { { I fzi ! cc Ca S. U ) CCO \ W U 2 ) ) C Cl) \L. k » qt \ « 2 4 § E ) ( t c & C / ' © a & •{ a 3 E - , O - c 0 e e # t > / O � I 6 O - ± 3 / k \ \ Cl) / o ) / -o ) \ j 0 G O 2 a) ( e e l / m g o 1,1' 600 (2 (33o_ J ! « \ G ) {_ w CD 10 » $ 2 2 2 * t L. & L. a i ) F _ _ . . li / • \ � / ) k k } § k / \ \ 2 § ) ) e k \ { § B ) j } \ / - { \ / ; e \ / / » ) / 2 ) •/ C } ) d § 0 \ C C > ) c ) } E \ \ Page E-247 \'\ \ i f F • ' i I . r I : . r I I frail; 0 / al « ( o \ ) to § / / ) r . , E \ / ° S ! S e 5 15 = e co ° ) w 5 ) co E I ) E \ E ° \ k 0 \ \ \ 0 / \ \ co \ } \ \ \ - \• \ \ \ ) \ 45 § \ \ \ / Qs o ° \ Cl) \ \ L. $ O % ca) eu Co\ ) \ o \ \ < \ ) \ La 0 \ \ \ \ t k ± ) ICo \ } # ) • 15 Ertl \ [ a \ ± 2 m / f m 2 O % § is \ § § : { a G e = .2 § \ ] H 6 t / G 2 / i. 3 § 4 f a) e § - a » % C , ( 0 | t C t 0 § * < 0 { ( ° § g \ / / 0 a ` \ § / a - \ \ ! . Kt o m moo it < o e O OF_ a H A / H i w ) / Lia § § k et ` o a) ; § c. ® $ & & & L. - \ - / t aLO : 5 ± <u E % ) ) \ CO » § ® ) / & p = t Z m a = § 01 - z - « g / ! ° $ ) f = / @ ) & ° / To c & � -Co t \ } \ ) g \ ( § \ / 2 } { \ f - /3 z a) < m ) ] o - s < \ A G J \ / k ) ) ) gePa E-248 i • U'1 4 H W Z x co z di . a a Q .0 4- c r @ o CO O L U o W 3 z ol n 4 II 4 S. o- V • y O `• , Q k 7-11 • cu N CO I F C m v • o a "CS g O o e a) O7 - o 00 CO G• m V- ,J m o r- 'rea C O o o $ cc F- U v M 41: a F C Ea) a) 0 EE Q a ti E g 0 .. 0 C NS - LO 0 3 v E o • m a N N - U L QJ L .4 k. CE — o Y '^ m EO I O Z LS 2 0 Page E-249 '4 '4aa f e NoI1fI75 a� 'Z EIS • MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: • November 10, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION • 1. Introductions • Tom A. asked guests at the meeting to introduce themselves. • Dave and Rick Wright, members of the public interested in the project. • Dave Hilliard, URS, representing the SH 60 (Johnstown) Study. 2. Follow Up From Last Meeting • • Craig G. handed out a 2-page white paper on Maximum Grade for Commuter Rail. • RTD uses 2 %_% for FasTracks. • Colorado Rail Car Company makes a DMU that can climb 4%, but it is the only one, and so it may not be practicable to rely on only one manufacturer. Therefore the recommendation remains using a 2 %2% grade. • Craig also explained the differences between station locations at 120th Avenue and SH 7 in terms of service frequency, connections and land use. Both locations will be studied further. • Tom A. solicited other discussions on past topics. There were no responses. 3. Access Planning Update • Tom A. explained that access planning (interchanges and station locations) is early in the overall DEIS process and will continue throughout 2006. • Bob G. pointed out that access planning is not a driver in Level 2 Screening. • Todd F. presented the 5-step access planning process, illustrated in a flow chart in the meeting agenda package. • He covered the Guiding Principles for Level 3 Screening; focus on existing interchanges, an operations based approach, and progressive evaluation of improvements. Goal should be LOS C for major reconfiguration of existing interchanges. • Step 1: Basic Improvements Evaluation. 1. Determine if basic improvements provide sufficient future level of service. • Step 2: Reasonable Improvements Evaluation 1. Reasonable improvements applied to interchanges with LOS E or F conditions with only basic improvements. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • ✓:W✓2251TAp200512005 MEETING M/NUTES11110051TAC-111005.doc Page E-250 Noun 125 P EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee November 10,2005 Page 2 of 10 2. Lee C. (RTD) asked if roundabouts at ramp terminals will be considered, since they seem to work well. 3. The LOS D threshold is for the intersection and not individual movements. 4. Bob G. replied that they will be considered. 5. Stan E. summarized that Step 2 analyzes a maximized diamond interchange. 6. Dave K. asked if LOS C is the threshold for analysis. 7. Mike F. (Mead) stated his relief to learn that"Basic Improvements" also included new, wider bridges to improve diamond interchanges. 8. Kathleen B. (Ft. Collins)asked if it was necessary to name the steps. It was agreed that the names were confusing. 9. Tom A. clarified that the process does not infer any prioritizing among interchanges. 10. Vicky M. and Dave M. suggested that steps be referenced only by number,without any names for them. 11. Tom A. said some slide titles will be changed. • Todd F. presented the Access Planning Results, as illustrated by green, yellow and red dots. • It was suggested that instead of labeling improvements as "basic or reasonable • improvements" label improvements as standard diamond or enhanced diamond. • Kathleen B. suggested that a Green Dot be referenced as enhanced diamond. • Burt K. (Broomfield)asked what we do when there are differences between DRCOG and local government traffic projections. Tom A. replied that will be addressed during the DEIS. • Vicky M. asked how SH 392 interchange was determined to be a Green Dot. FHU staff replied the confusion lies in the current words,which will be changed as previously discussed. • Mike F. said that the 3-color coding indicates configuration, but appear to indicate traffic condition. • It was suggested to label improvements"Level 1' instead of"Basic Improvements" and "Level 2" instead of"Reasonable Improvements". • Bob G. suggested that the meaning of the red, yellow and green dots be clarified. • John F. (Johnstown) stated that the colors must be constantly updated to prevent confusion as we work through the process. • Another suggestion was to use 0 for standard diamond, to for enhanced diamond and • for beyond diamond. • Todd F. presented the list of interchanges shown as Red Dots, and the extent of improvements that will be evaluated, covering Harmony Road, SH14, US 34, and Johnson's Corner. • Stan E. asked if Harmony Road and SH 14 could look similar, both with directional ramps. The answer was"yes". • In response to Kathleen B's question of how these two will be evaluated, the answer is that overall operations will be evaluated with a reconfiguration and with a nearby new interchange. If either one alone produces LOS D at the interchange, then both reconfiguration and a new interchange together would be evaluated. • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation TAC-111005.doc Page E-251 NORTH 125 EIS a. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee November 10,2005 Page 3 of 10 • Bill A. (Greeley)asked if improvements to SH 402 might help US 34 future operations. The response given was that SH 402 would be considered. • John F. stated interest in studying reconfigurations at Johnson Corner, as Todd's slide proposed. 4. Access Planning Next Steps • Todd F. said the team will next solicit input from local communities, and refine the evaluation process and further develop alternatives. • Dave K. asked how input from locals will be processed. Tom A. responded that within the next few months we will meet with any individual communities on analyses done to date, and we keep the TAC informed of all developments. • Tom A. emphasized that issues such as Broomfield's disagreement with DRCOG traffic volumes will be addressed within the DEIS schedule, but after the current interchange issues are addressed. • Dave K. stated his understanding of the two processes: current level is macro, considering how interchanges collectively will operate; and 2nd level will be micro, on individual interchange issues. • Dave M. summarized that R-4 is willing to meet with locals now, but the more significant meetings with them will occur 3-6 months from now. • • Bob G. stated that we are bound to use MPO traffic volume projections, and asked what framework can be established to address land uses that are not in the MPO travel models. • Tom A. stated that the EIS focus must be maintained on serving future regional travel demand. • Kathleen B. asked when the process will address interchange effects on the adjacent local street network. Tom replied that will occur closer to the DEIS, when we have the very best traffic information. Kathleen B. urged that this part of the process be communicated clearly, and Tom agreed. • Burt K. stated that the overall concern is that we make the best investment. He expressed concern that if Broomfield finds a way to make its own investment in an I-25/Sheridan interchange, it not be forced into one that is not most efficient. • Mike F. asked about the focus of the public meetings in January and February. Tom A. replied that the interchange dots will not be the focus of the next series of meetings. Mike asked for parameters on interchanges, so that he will not raise false hopes with his Town Board. • Tom A. replied that further discussion/education will occur in individual meetings. • Richard L. (Frederick) asked when prioritization among interchanges with respect to LOS C or D will be determined. He would like to see detailed evaluation before the C/D issue is decided. • Sharleen B. (CDOT) stated that the NEPA process is very layered, so that the evaluation process is iterative. A narrow focus too early can waste dollars, but focusing too late will raise contention. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation • TAC-111005.doc Page E-252 • NORTH I-25 EIS W. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation,trenspetation. Technical Advisory Committee November 10,2005 Page 4 of 10 5. Public Involvement • Transit Station Planning 1. The second round of meetings will involve four meetings. 2. TAC members are Invited. • Town Hall meetings schedule was handed out. • Next TAC meeting on December 15th will focus on the eight Alternative Packages, not on interchanges. Next Meeting: Thursday, December 15, 2005 Southwest Weld County Services Building 1:30—3:00 PM • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation TAC-111005 doc Page E-253 t-iii \ y I , mow — : — - • \q • Q 44 ) •\ 0 \ a E \ — ° k § ; E / E 5. R k \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ \ ° } § 2 \ / » \ \ \ t 7 § a § - \ k « ( t C 2 / 0 ) \ \ \ _ \ % 2 2 \ 8 ( 2 ( w ; e A j ) 0 ) . e ) $ 00 0 0 \ ± I I-- \ A \ \ \ m 10 ca \ . Z § ± / ( ) \ Ill $ f $ T. / / 7 ) ! co / ) { \ ) ; # co 2 $ ) \ \ ? j k / \ m . w / o 0 0 as \ \ e s— Cc / v \ O \ o ! 2 o / / o // a c • o k ) ) » Q & \ ( ] * 0 0 0 006 H z a 4 0 = a. CS o o e a 7 2 \ ) { { { C ; n \ ® ? L. / / / § \ § \, E c ( ) \ § . m \ \ m . / { < 0 ) \ 4 m ) w / 3 \ j t f -a Q ® ( 2O /` ] ) ; k 2 ) CD § 6 » 6 2 r o G A \ a / ) \ \ ) ) k I 0 0 } - 0 ) / \ 0 \ WC 0 0 \ ge E-254 ---- - - _ \_ a q q Q $ § 44 O ui to' , ® 0 \ 0 0 ; / k \ / } \ a co f \ k a) O - a o # / » ; 2 • \ 0 \ co 7 ( F. ( CO { - \ co C) - ( \ ) \ ) y § R 2 = 0 \ } i 4) { 03 - { N ( W a ■ f 3 # e ] ± E / ) 0 t ,a } { a \ ) 6 _ O ill ) .2 . C. \ ) 0co ) in 2 / \ ) E"..- -2 ct a. 2 { / ) S ° # § \ \ \ \ ) O 0 { } \ / ) \ \ k / c / ± j ) } k D a \ D 0 o a \) \ a % • CC 1X e o u c o o & o e 000 .630z ! _ � _ < \ « § § { { ) 2 t f / / ) ) § E .ct O / a'© ) ) \ - \ C ) D { 92 '65® - k CO F. 2 2 k - • \ / '0; \ \ ) \ / -E ) \ CD m LL LL co LL ca } 0aal ) \ / s. / / Z ) o o .O ) \ < C ] \ \ 7 ) / m a $ 0 < ) Page E-255 ____�._ i „i.s t n 4 III Z to H = I: 0 4+ o Eo f 15 j c o > o, c o o c) m. o p O O C o• o o CJ O• 0 c 0 vj C 0 .t 6 crs v vi 1) 1:2E 0 E 0"j E 3 a), o -a —) 00 .0 .c o a co 2 0 C > D 2 3 Q N c I '�' c a c ao c. cD >". °'CU a C VY -0L O t N . O a1VWa. u O E E _ O E E E _ i _ a A I ts d c •c o a . , O h A 0 -sr V in • w C 0) _ h ct 1 Lc- O E tt ++ O 0 0 G O c p. to m O C le c '� v� o z- > 0 0 c x ca z- -0 ai c O o U m m U) H 0 oo a) o °1 0 gs , J as 0 o CO it c U y- U U— Z . o m o 0O vU c o o O c c o of UO CO N 0 Eso t� cii E 8 Q U Gm O 1- cc O U m < H U U a. H O U O J - o a c (1) d as c c 0 o � a� a) a) w a) m aa) O. Q. Q. a EE �- _ O u O V Q c e00 - E 11 w C Y C Y V 0 s t`a E. N U)) 'C `° O o +- J J • cE 0 o x = > t —3 -' a> Y Y Y ti c.Ci > — c co c C c Y ` r a) y ca p , 0 O L O O O Q) 7 co ca o O O o c "co a1 co 0 H Z Z a. I-- Y w —) 0 z 2 U' 2 -I o m _1 i I- O C') cc 9I' Page E-256 6r . • q _ m H ) HQ E @ E \ / E m r 2 ° ! \ \ 2 j ` k / \ \ \ \ } } / \ \ E ! \ \ { / / k \ j j \ \ / w ) E 2 _ « ° , s > , k E = @ F. % ( / \ \ ) \ } \ } / \ \ § a / \ \ , ) / 2 • o — I } \ o § 6 0 4 k k \ ® 0 , / ® c § \ \ \ c o O 0 ii ) E u O \ 0 o .0 0 \ \ • ( 2 ( o k ° L. CO } -CD / -o 0 \ C 0 \ i16 ( Q > H H co 7,5 G co 0 -, 0 0 0 H o a ± 0 ! ) t ! / . I ! E 2 \ f ) \ E ; �a",,, m @ E < F- 758 \ \ # \ ',5 § 'E \ } } / ) ) \ ' \ E \ • k \ / ) I I ® § e co _ a & _ . 2 12 z / } co § \ 2 \ } 0 \ 0 j 2 \ \ \ \ 0 172 \ ) 0 \ Page E-257 ._. �w� - � ��---p. .�-- �� . ..�y.. �{--.. .. . j � � • 4, ii.., q c ) © o cli > E 44 k § \ O 6 E' § 1 S % ° o e g 6 a « m 5 C • § ° o E / / $ 7 0 V ° -0 / 12 E $ § E 2 \ E R 2cn 2 R f :` c § o § 4 c % f@ 7 2 $ % 3 E 6 7 2 m \ 2 E ° 2 E 0 0 cu E A to 0 c G U If) 7 E Q. Z 2 $ -g / § k a E k k � k \ f W d / o / k to k / k 7 ' \ 2 t E k , 2 @ k \ Z3 2 ' •O. N W ! - - . - - - 7 & \ § k o j © n o k c c Z. 0 0 e m § § ) E § § k 0 - S 15. § 0 - k 2 0 . c c $ 4 2 k co O it Lli I- / R / 9- 0 f RI % k k o a , "E o E 2 9- o 0 o < 0 c J 2 0 0 0@ o o - 0 I 0 ) O o O U w w e e e %< Q - O R w % ( CD a § VE E - - - - . . , k Lt) E c ,15 ■ / 0 § 0 k R C CO c c E CO B « \ f / J / $ k k o w k § >. § 2 2 \ a, CL 1 a g $ m@ -o co co c © m ■ R © 0 2 A 2 t \ / § c -0 \ k / CO E 0 ■ e ca 2 E c 2 2 - 0 t 2 © § 0 ( I- Z Z 0 < CO (X 2 O -, - < c@ m ct - 0 Os ir. i Page E-258 Ii - — T.,.... __. _rte I I , —T—_—r_-1 ql: • F' 4 N W 0 L.! U O c U U) O . O c 0 E E a c)r c o E a O U O E L. Q w `O as co co c U) a 0 Y .c (a = t ^. o s a� 9. o W .3 Z H aL E 2 , i. , , I. v q q. a 0 `o U L L Q 5 c ,a w co o S • (J CJ C C N 3 as c y d }- I- I 0 _ L. 3 a o {3. _co o a Q) 5 .'a S O• D y o C a) aI 1 _ N N o Co CO L1. L-„, 2 o , O 3 o o0 Y� c O+�� c v(0 (6 8, m c a O .F+,' O O Q) O c Q I— O t— _I —3 I— LL. U o V < ti 03 033 0,1 CD 03 o o a) cu ` Cl) ti 3 Q 2 E z U '` w 00 c u) o d N J -a Q 7 a a) a) n III ti Td LL n � � O > (o E U a U co ;Y O F- z z -, 2 F- E•• o m a ,i Page E-259 NORTH 1-25 EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: December 15, 2005 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Service Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt& Ullevig Becky Noe/Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Public Involvement • Kim still needs more involvement. • Bob G. —working group give citizens a chance for input into station locations. • Advertisement in local level in process it is all print. Will start first week of January. • Vicky—do other consultants doing corridor work get notice? 3. Access Planning • Deb B. ask how new interchanges work in the process, but also commented that new interchange considerations may be outside the access planning process. • Items that are outside the process will be learned and considered in small group meetings with the communities. 4. Screening • Vicky—Suggestion that LAL being indicated be barrier separated. • Dave — Is the LAL 30% higher total? • Are there Drop Ramps at the interchanges for LAL? — No. • Dave — Show a cross section to depict the LAL. • Vicky— How many HOV tested? • Demand in the central section of corridor does not provide enough congestion to work. • Capital Cost— HOV cost is similar to Toll and HOT. Why is that? • Would seem that HOV would be less? o FHU will check. • The travel speed on the 8-lane seems high. 40 Minutes for from SH 14 to E-470. • Vehicles miles of travel. What is this a measure of. What are we measuring? VMT was included to show that people are driving out of their way to get to the facility. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TAC120041hiu 200612005 TACU2/S051TAC-121505.doc Page E-260 NORTH 1-25 • EIS . - MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 15,2005 Page 2 of 11 • Would provide lanes as needed and phased to meet future demand. • What does the VHT tell us? • Why pick PM Southbound? It was the one that shows the most differentiation. 5. Transit • The transit and evaluation results based on highway improvement. • A shared guideway and managed lanes seem to be different type of facilities. Managed lanes acting as a managed lane. • The word Guideway is probably misleading. • Either Commuter Bus and BRT bus both could use managed lanes. • Guideway seems to suggest rail. • The commuter bus riedership is not limited by the number of buss running. A generous service was assumed. • The information provided on ridership is the demand, more the sufficient capacity is provided to meet this demand. • How are the travel times within a few minutes of each other? The scale or the chart does not depict the difference adequately. • • Another reason Commuter Bus stations were fewer because of the difficulty of getting on and off the facility. • Is the station spacing optimum? The transit working groups will help to defin this. Peer data was used to deleim99799 Station areas for the analysis. • The average distance people will drive to a commuter rail station is 4 miles, walking %3 mile. The 85th percentile finding is 9 miles. • The 1-25 alignment would likely be to far away for Greeley people to use it. • The commuter bus is more express but BRT one more high capacity/high speed/quick load type of service. • The Western Alignment would seem to attract more special use trips. The model does not account for these. Special use trips are being estimated from the HH survey. • The Western Alignment has greater noise, social, circulation and vibration impacts. This is one big difference between the two. • The Central Alignment will attract new land and impact those; however on impact to existing use is perceived different then a possible future impact to land. • Berthoud has supported rail and will continue. • New development currently being built in the corridor and will beimpacted. • The Commuter Bus system combined with a BRT system. • Commuter Bus can grow into a BRT system. • The Central Alignment has more length than Western Alignment. • Suggested to look at cost per trip length rather than cost per user. • The least damaging environmentally alternative in terms of aquatic resources is required to be identified, this is Package 1. From a process requirement will need to carry forward something similar to Package 1. This applies to DEIS and FEIS. • The Corps look at the least environmentally damaging that is the most practable and best • meets purpose and need. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J.-103225105.74O12004 thru 200612005 TAC11215051TAC-121505.doc Page E-261 NORTH 1-25 ;. :,' EIS •MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 15,2005 Page 3 of 11 • Have 8-lanes in northern Colorado not be needed if there were a good parallel arterial system. In Level 2 6-lanes plus arterials does not provide enough capacity to address the 2030 demand. • The short trips in Northern Colorado can this be addressed with parallel arterials? • Suggestion to use BRT to address short-trips. • If 8-lane addresses the demand, then do we need not to do anything else to address the demand? • There are other things you can do to address the demand. EIS's are approved all the time that recognize congestion today and congestion in the future. • Footprint of Western alignment vs. I-25 alignment. Need more information on why the western has more impact then the Central. • Western Alignment: Pros—Accessibility, Cons —NoiseNibration' o Most cost effective. 6. Flip Chart Notes • LA Lanes o Note 2 lanes each direction o Are there drop ramps at the intersections o A cross section would help sell bullet 3 • o Is it 30% more for total cost? • Managed Lanes o How many HOV lanes were tested? o Buffer or Barrier separated? o You need congestion in GP lane to create demand in talk lanes • General Comments o 3 Lanes-8 lane section justified where —tells me is that local demand driving that? o Those marginal trips not going to Denver. o HOV not barrier separated — not barrier separated —Why? Is cost similar? o Are these 20 year projections? o What speeds are you assuming from 14 to E-470. 40 Min? o Annual cost per user—is it Annual new cost? o VMT—is that capacity or the fact that 8 lanes will draw more people — utilization? o Is it VMT on 1-25 or whole study area? o Would you do a variety of lanes with places to expand needs beyond 2030? o Is there a reason you picked PM Southbound? • Commuter Bus o Is there anything that estimates demand? Put it down o These will be based on improvements we already talked about? o How many busses? More busses equals more riders • BRT o Why you use the word "shared guideway"? I think it is something specific for that technology but then you talk about managed lanes which are shared — I think the word guideway is confusing. o 2 photos— both vehicles could be used in either scenario • o Some operate at higher speed —some are shuttle Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation !:103115105.TAC12004 Ora 200612005 TAC1215051TAC-121505.doe Page E-262 NORTH 1-25 • EIS ` s<> MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 15, 2005 Page 4 of 11 o Use "road only" instead of shared guideway. o BRT has higher demand then CB when it runs on same route? o Travel time —how are they all within a minute or two of each other?—you get a "smoother" ride the further you go on BRT. o How sensitive is model in predicting demand in terms and station location and spacing? Is this spacing optimum? o Some station location info came from peer system comparisons. o Is there a distance that impacts if people will come? o Given zone of influence -would have little benefit to us 15 miles away o BRT is meant for high capacity—short term—high speed on/off. CB is more express — less stops, longer trips, more flexible. • Commuter Rail o When you say 50% higher—are you meaning non-work users? o 50% higher— is that capital costs o you are assuming FasTracks picks up southern connections o Looking at transit stations, you will have development where transit is—need testing to support transit. • o Aren't there 2 impacts— immediate vs. secondary development that is not there yet? o To station locations factor in land use plans? o is strong proponent of CR—we support it through/around our town — Berthoud. o Existing 1-25 communities very close to highway—people don't seem to mind noise. o Did we consider fly-overs and those impacts? o Have we looked at BRT/CB as one program? BRT at peak hours, CB at off peak?" o Would lost between central vs. west alignment corridor cost per mile vs. user—cost per user length of trip.( o Transit commuter bus) location—west, central, east o Can we combine transit with parallel arterials to solve issue? • One, Two, or Three lines • Alternatives for Further Consideration o Have parallel arterials been considered for complimentary alternatives? o Arterials create bigger impacts o Trips in Northern 1/3 are short trips —could be considered an off-system roads—can you look at that? o BRT characteristics—could it be worked into the solution for those short trips? o BRT— 2 columns—infrastructure vs. operating characteristic. o If you build 8 lanes —LOS C—there are smaller things you can do than traditional BRT. o Can we show footprint for CR on 287 vs. 1-25? • Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225105.TAC'12004 Hw 200612005 TAC112/5051TAC-121505.doc Page E-263 NORTH 1-25 `r EIS -.2' MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee December 15,2005 Page 5 of 11 • Western Pros Cons Accessible NoiseNibration More Cost Effective Next Meeting: Thursday, January 12, 2006 Southwest Weld County Services Building 1:30—3:00 PM • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J.:103215105.TAC12004 Uvu 200612005 TAC11215051TAC-121505.doc Page E-264 T I I I I I I I • N � H W y x H o up x ai o E o O y V O O �Z O • o o O > o j O O E° -a 0 "O t. N OO 0, O N E N } U O N 3 o E J O 2 w y -0- > O v U O O C cr E OO E N O N > L c 7 O O C L. �C m O OO a) p0 6 >'� as b 'U Y .Lc •O -0 u > e O 0 o Q3 U V U U r. 3 2 a) -c co a aco ci, Y a _y .O @ o n 'm E '° a`� Y p .c o E ° E >, o E 4 N a)E N as f6 2 2 ° Wc 0 ci a3 as H Cn _o V O m Y a 0 Y O o I w O x d kla �d 6C p (L U E c c c o W m o O O ° ° .. r 5 _Lki 2 r 5 • CO LL a a L [ V Q r. ° E Z Q, W a) (`a N 'z r Z cn z I- F- i- a R 0 - ti b w • a) 0 a 5 a) e N ° C N 0 a) � •E a0) °� N c a) .c c c o E U v CD E a ' C �' °) (7 0 0 W c m § w F o E x be co m o F- o (ca o c U o c o . 0 0 O E Z Q0 U LL 0 O am LL F-- LL 0 1— 0 LL LL 0 00 z) '0 as �- 5 a 0) 0) 000) d d C) 0) o a) ayi W aa)i 0)) al 0) E Q a a` a` a s a a` I o b U N C r a"co f° E a) ) E v ! N O N Y N N O O N Y 3 C N • o • > N c .� (a Y L c t. - o 'O O Y r as c as m N Y as M E o E Y m E o E Y < 'q c m m y C n) CO L.o U a U To' NE C a) N M N m m m U ° o 2 E. c o E N E N .c asN fl > L. y C •,N >, ›+ m N > � ro H O a7 N — p co a) a) (0 as as p .C Ti) O a) `- O _C o Z N 5 h— m I 0 0 C7 Y -, O Y 2 � U` a) 0 Page E-265 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•« .:-• I • \ I i i • \ I \ I j I I I i / � • H., 0 E Z § , / q \ q ) ) \ § ` ) E E § \ ( j k § - § % / ) % § 0 a c ) / a O § 0 2 4 § f f a 7 a 7 ! § \ \ } E \ \ / \ c -c \ \ / & \ \ $ V { k 2 o k a \ \ ! \ ~ � t- { _ | { Q t / E 2 3 \ e { 3 E \ / R \ cr , , _ _ I- o ) cn Q) } VI & % 2 / 2 § ! ] « c > N Q.U) )_ / _ . I ) 1.1 ( \ ) y ) O 2" 0 S « { ( \ CD c ) / o a { / ) \ } ) } } o \ ® < § § \ D \ \ _ \ \ ] OEC f \ 2 e o / E z = c « ci e « e o m o o d e w e U- o o G o ] o ) a _ . 4 \ \ i { i ` i i i & ® ; 2 § 2 ; & ! \ $ l a 0 & QL.. a % \ io I * 6 § , G » ` c % d ) \ # 5 \ { - § - c \ F an ° O / \ / \ / § L„3„- 0 ) 0 0 e O ID $- .c a) •2 c e c \ - = 3 C § ` } ) fa j 0 C 2 CO /] z 6 « 3 A ) ) / < < 2 ] c / I » 3 a ] e < ) Page E-2 e .. T , I i I \ \ / \ i i I I 0 q� \ to \ / { ! E / E ) •§ E k — /O . E 0 - E » \ \ \ a as \ al j ` - § ) 3 k lit \ k7 /{ \ \ \ \2 f 3 # g { E / t { ; 1 ) & j \ \ I # ) © r > } - a ± \ E ` a > t t o , k 2\ ] 0 I / ° e \ k \ (7, O \ \ / \ } = j = 0 0C Ie k \/\ 0 - \ l / O ( CO \ w * « 0 ® t / ¢ o/ m 0 / F- 0 o 2 # & e o (L / o 0 0 - - \ k ) w wE. C ) ) ) 12 * 2 0E \ 00 = C C E [ c c_ = N > i )\ ca ul / § \ ) } CO « — § ( \ k cts° k § ) ! � k \ 2 / ) ) ) \ t « « ( / \ \ ) \ \ \ ` § t § » f c2 ® w § w « { = c > ` ® em ) ! Z a. J CO } ) $ 7 § 0 _ \ CO 3 = ) / 3 / < \ Page E-267 Ili ' I i I i H W W N H O to 7 U Z E °ocf, o ° > aUi Y O O O O C C N y6 U N O`) O' .C o U• O N O d > y a) 7 O pp �: ▪ O d a) U L C N a) O E U a) y o = o w o - -o •o E ai E n Po a 3 ° - w 0 o Q O Qs E a C 9 O N �` O a. C @ w C • N O O O C N N @ a to m E m m 5 f° o` E L O C m L m N O W > - z Y 0 0 £ z Fo- 2 3' E a _ _. 4 O I 3 a us c a• t m l0 y 2 c ED 7-ra i E1-•- 4 -111. b o > us a)a) o ❑ a) o .5 b r- ▪ U n, aa)) 0 m r o z C.)t. m aa)i e N' d O O m U N m m O U O W m c it? L. c It .C -a = C D o O E O E c°) r lL O O m -a = c0 = N ❑ O O ❑ N m m u v° Q Z H F- U 5 m 0 u. 0 U U U F- U J CL U h a o E. a 0v C) CC) CC) C) o C a) aa)) as a)va u7 10 in C)) Zt a a` a` a` a a` Q ti E E o O o o a a N E c •5 -� N C ` ` ` CO a) m a) _ O a) O :E N �. C a CO C 0 rn a) N o m Z Z a O a a) -oo .� TO c ti 2 2 2 w 2 4 O O n_ d o n. C C E Y Y C Y "� N C N > .M c O ` a N •h -C CDo as a) U o U = a) m .j E 0 m o a) N a) `m m E E H O Z j -D 2 -) Y 0 -, 0 -- Z F- U) -) 0 2 Y 0 s Page E-268 i I I • NW Z to 5.7W C w U OO O H O co O - O U N U U E D O = co 7 to O O O > O O U OO j O = E y nu) >O -O O • V u v a` a "-° v oo E o c o co 0 vi -O E 0 m E = y E v vQ a Q) 0 = o = '� r a) c C o ° co 0 V V O O .L c>9 v O v v c •@ g aC m o o '� @ m o w- v v 3 0 6 3 3 3, -4 U V O U @ O (0 V o a1 C a+ g U Q Q Q E U @a air m `r C C t. co a) N p V• N ai N, N E -06 N U 02 N CO C C F: U 0 W a mu) 2 0 0 U < a Cl) 23 U co c 'o) C v O 0 I ,YO U C O D • aJ C t c-: O W b Er. >> C c a.) o o E a) tl in o a 5 C U c `o o e co 2, 2- 2, U N 2 C 2 to to to I c E o 0 = o 0 c > a) -in a>i U C S C a O .co 0 0 O U 0 o - W U Q t u) C`) _ 5- 5 U m w a) a) m C I CO Cr- o E o O o o U o Q 0 ba O -O V O 03 E O C E a C C C -c c > C Q U m m U U cc Q U H U H H H H }i H u- H a b c'. ',4;4, F O C Cl b N N a) a) t 4 a F E a E b O (3 C2 y° o c O > a C @ G O) o E T co = C/) c N t O = to � y c0 O ca coCO .0 m E L u) N .E o u) C 7 J, (0 2 f0 g I. `� m a — d Q v) co c a) o o Gi f6 c— EL C @ O 3 H C 'C C 3 U U CO a) C U CO N co a) E a d .C N O LO tU C a) 0 O o H O 2 C`) Q u) C O -, H Q in u) m Ce - 0 O - CC Ai Page E-269 \ . . \ � I I I I I , \ \ 4,0141 qcn W . Q 0 / \ § , ® R o ( § ` � \ •c \ \ ° « ' °• § \ q \ \ \ \ ra) \ ) a) \ R a 6 « = - 3 = % 111 \ 2 & \ \ 2 ) 2 I- - \ G / g / \ \ \ k k \ k ® 0 I e e e ) co 1.1 5 ] § _ / o o k_ B » - \ \ / \ \ \ c a \ t ii 'Gs } ' e o e s j e ± 0 03 & ! \ ki S. ) * / a) / ) ) G E - . . \ /r ) � s ) § !o y� 5 : o0 c 3 ) § c -H B -- j ) k J \ 3Z } } k ) \ — ( Page E-270 If A 1 NORTH 1-25 • Meeting Minutes EIS Technical Advisory Committee January 12,2006 Page 1 of 6 information.cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: January 12, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Gregg Mugele SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions Tom introduced Steve Silkworth and Dan Ledy of Maintenance Design Group; they are consultants in transit maintenance facilities design. • 2. Follow up from December Meeting 8 lanes vs. 6 lanes • Would including more local roadway improvements reduce the demand on 1-25? • A sensitivity run of the model reduced 1-25 volumes by 10-12 percent and improved operation by one LOS grade in most locations. • Vicki M. asked why local improvements would or would not be included in the DEIS. • Dave M. replied that they are local recommendations that are under consideration. Transit Ridership Results • Chris Primus suggested that a workshop on the results be conducted during the normal date for the TAC • Special event trips would increase ridership by 200-400 trips on a weekday, 500-1,000 on a weekend • Transit forecasters learned in the 1970's not to predict higher future fuel prices when prices have recently jumped, because that leads to false high projections. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 2:103M105.14C12004 thnt 200612006 TACI0112061TAC-011206MMdoc Page E-271 Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 � z Technical Advisory Committee EIS t�qu _• January 12,2006 Page 2 of 8 information. cooperation. transportation. 3. Town Hall Meeting Presentation • Information will largely be presented on flip charts, and the recommendations on large boards. • Packets will be available on design, the environment and costs, to provide answers to anticipated questions. • The series of 27 flip charts was reviewed • DIA ridership is feasible for consideration in the DEIS. • The chart summarizing key environmental points will be revised into two parts as suggested. • Bob F. asked the TAC to confirm the five bullets summarizing what they said at last months meeting. • • Vicky M. said she is not convinced that Commuter Rail along US 287 would serve "population centers", as shown on a flip chart. • Dave K replied to Bob F. that Commuter Rail on US 287 would trigger revisions to Loveland's growth plan; where as along 1-25 it would not. • Tom Anzia said the slide would be revised to reflect today's discussions. • Bob F. asked the TAC if they see any value in including the "Comments Heard from Advisory Committee Members"graphic in the Town Hall Meetings. • Consensus was that the TAC does, but need to revise the only bullet that is corridor specific (Commuter Rail on US 287). • Dave K suggested a reference to future work on interchanges on the highway flip chart. Recommended Draft Alternatives for DEIS • Julie stated the differences with respect to criteria, between the eastern and western corridor's, in response to Vicky M's statement about US 287 Commuter Rail. • Bill H. stated his belief that these two alternatives (A&B) ought to be presented as early recommendations. • Stan E. clarified Bill H's point: Alternatives A&B may not be carried into the DEIS, but are another step towards definition of the DEIS Alternatives. • Vicky M. expressed desire to retain Commuter Rail along the central corridor. • Tom Anzia asked if Commuter Rail along the west corridor could be established instead since their riderships are fairly close. • Jim White (Town of Berthound) stated his preference for US 287, given what he has heard. • Sharleen B. stated that the two alternatives, A&B, at this point in the decision process, should be the only ones discussed. She encouraged all TAC members to express their thoughts. • Bill A. said Commuter Rail should operate where it will be most used the most: on US 287. • John S (Ft. Lupton) said he concurs with Bill A. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation J.903225105.TAC12004 Porte 2 00612 00 6 TAC101I2061TAC-01 J206MMdoc Page E-272 NORTH 1-25 '`' k w fa • Meeting Minutesr 5 Technical Advisory Committee EIS 1: January 12,2006 Page 3 of 8 information. cooperation. transportation. • John F. (Johnston) explained why he believes that, at this time going into the Town Hall meetings, an Alternative C with central Commuter Rail should be presented. • Dave K said that Alternative B, with BRT, makes more sense to him. He wonders about converting BRT into rail in the distant future. • Jim Brighton suggested we need to present both west and central rail lines. • Jim S suggested that the Town Hall meeting presentations include more slides to cover questions as to why some alternatives have been eliminated. • Kathleen B. (Ft Collins) likes the approach for different modes being recommended for three different corridors, but also sees merit presenting in an Alternative C. • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 1:103225105.TAG-12004 thn,200612006 TAO0112061TAC-011206MMdoc Page E-273 7 - 0 / . , / =1 N W § E E q o § o } # E t « r > ' q k •k / g ) E y ° § c / & @ e ( E [ Li k / ° cd § / § / g c u o o ii . e m 8 / ° o 1EI41I ° E :2 f !01 4:- ••• al 7 I '..".= _Y 9 m © « k E \ k Ilj \ \ § \ 3 k } t g k / / \ 2 ! -- % 1 — } \ g ) . § . E O ; § $ \ co \ \ _ 45. , 0 Q. k § k \ m a R @ ' . . , . . . { k } \ $ k & \ G ® 2 b 2 q ` j \ / \ \ §8.2 8 t qui \ _ \ \ \ o % % % f i $ 2 o k 15, < S o ° = g $ = o \ -t K E § m , $ ci - w % o a_< b S J e i - - } E U § Aj3 k 4 % . . . k \ 2 ■io k . ~ . hc___ / j��'ci 2 §E , . # / E § S CO = c E ° $ e czr, k c -mi \ & it / 8 3 [ — .O Uril \ co / 5 0 ' A )/ m ® 3 g t k E El) itiE c u. u \ , O 3 3 & § 9 ] 2 \ Q / \ / -1 C 0 0 o o o o \ # U C .4 § e* Z O u O, o m. < < c m -5 e W m. co o ≥ 2 < 7 ( \ 0 Page E-274 0 k j $ ( ° ® ® § E E ` E ! . . « ) ( { ; , ] § / @ / § ] ( ) \ / j \ \ \ 0 \ ) \ 7 E / / E ! \ cx ) ! - § # f } § ( 2 ] ) ) S ) { \ ) i _ , « a = \ § / } k r ® ) , Q > ! / \ f \ t ; « # } E 7 } a \ ) i �• I ® 2 }ca ) 2 o { } \ : \ j > } ( ` » \ » if \ } / } 0 / 6 2 \ C ) j Irdi _ P 15 2 Q f ) w E : k \ } } ) ) m 0 i \ \ 0 H e e j m / ! \ \/ ) ! ) 7 ) ik ) $ © N ) / \ { ( } `~ ° ` ` ^ § ® \ ` ` ® § \ \\ § \ CM co § \ / co) O cv ) / \ \ \ } . ) \ • ;! J « ) $ k } CO ) e \ \ , k ] \ ) ± / , a z N . } • ) Page E-275 . 0 / \ / E 2 ( 2 k ! ° g \ } 6 r \ \ / B ( ° ) § ` , o m - \ \ ; r , ) ( \ \ e \ ( } ( k \ k / ) ) k 5 r « ! § ] ` f § ] ; ( / f ) ` 7 / { \ ) \ / ) \ \ « a ( \ : \ ; ' u e ; 7 ` \ ( ] \ \ \ \ \ < ] \ 2 { / ) k C } \ , °-- , , . ( \ \ 0 iL { i ) \ fi \ \ \ } a)o [ o ;to Lt. To2 C » » \ ) f \ 2 _ 2 , , § _ ) i ) ) A j j } ) ) \ O f \ ) I )a & ? a ; , E , ! a ... ! F. . 4 . ( } ) } \ \ \ \ § \ / c § ~ \ \ \ j ! o w o w w f e = e ! ) \ § C } m ) \ ct _al g / F. o / _ 2 !! E t w ) \ J / ) _ # cv : ( B r \ ) k' ' » ) I t / ® Co \ ` m ! - / « , a ) . ) ! ! \ { g f « ; E B f ) e , / } ; ! J ! CO 2 Co 3 / E k ED.00 �/ \ A k , } ) m o / ge E-276 0 a -- = ! I/• . q -> \ « f 0 a q S E ( - ) •• 8 k 2 A o e k e " ) f f § ^ k § j k ) 7 k - -6 t o Z f \ \ } 2 / 5 J : co } k Q . 2 i \ E d 3 a |} t w § } } I § / G k k k @ d k f s k ) lb \ } } CO t to } h- A 7 'N ` ~ )1 ' - - ---- - | % c 4 !. } / | i a04 _ , g , . Li c f 2 a 4 { 4 a \ �_ f } § I / ] v ) c # \ K / • L. _ q \ ) k ` ± -/ v / u R o \s tl, I ;. / k 2 J ) c �% • § / J iw ) 8 $ E c k $ ] §\ f §k k � § ) § u e k ® 2 f \ u- _ > j\ \ i \d i- j o } \ } ) } . O 6. 0 cl. o vi Page E-277 0 / �Q § § 0 bit\ ra - o , § •ai ( § 2 \ ) \ \ E { \ ) e § ) _ $ \ ) # @ # § = % r } e ® Lao a . : ® . 2 . E \ \ .0 * ° ` J ) } ( ( 7} •j I \ \ ) / \ ) • = \ / k2 ) - 1 $ / G ct I— , : , o e n 2 I : § ; ? \ - - ® s ! a { ) 2 I ! ! E\ \ \ _ \ \ \ tt \ \ • \ / in z / e ) e-- « \ \ D..) , — --— ; I( \ \ / \ • « ®0 o $ 3 ) Co © I) & � � 2 )0� co r g' m ) � � : � ` $ o o \ . { \ a } ) \/\ ( } \ \ c 45 I-0 0000 f ) 7 -- b., t, E / I ) r ° § _ < \ § ` „ i . 1 ! ) 3§ I ! « / y j ; , \ {- f .2 / to{ / $ f 2 ; ! p a = i /, \ k / ) \ \ ` / ` 7 J CO ] / / ) | ! / ` J a 2 ° ) ) } � Page E-278 Technical Advisory Committee NORTH 125 w`` ₹ ` March 9, 2006 • Page 1 of 6 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE: March 9, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet jj PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig IIIIIII SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION IIIIII{i{I I►!I{III ({{{{{{{ 1. Introductions IIIIIIIII{ {{{{{{{{{ 2. Public Meeting Input Summary ,I It • Kim provided a verbal summary abou4� 12 publi��jpetings held i p study area, the number of participants that att a ill fnne of the prima r'comments and questions heard from attendees. {{{I` 3. DEIS Package Discussion j ( 110%6 1� g s ussion WA • Participants were asked to ide the k{ s ensiderations that should • be addresses during the DEIS?' a res NI surTi'i rized below. A. How are we o Votes 9 a) Bus —feed funding b) Do toll land ual non-c pete agr ent? No other improvements. c) Local off-rou po ig is o roved 1-25 and interchange traffic man ent. ( OM II' d) nil ng frontage 'Its. Funding replacements and property access. e b will fu pe ansit alternatives? ;it it ill people wh 3 th i��i Id ride rail actually use it? Fisc {) • nstraints. a) See er revenu $ urces. b) Don't {f it if it I! Yiways lose money. �Anticipate � Growth. Votes 9 a) Is the rail in th. best future location considering population centers & access? b) Anticipate growth of small communities east of 1-25. c) Local/regional land use plans & developments d) What is rails 'positions impact' to future land uses and development in the corridor? e) Key considerations to be addressed: Do the traffic projections truly reflect all of the known/planned development? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\030906\TAC 030906.MM.doc Page E-279 Technical Advisory Committee NORTH 1-25 ,:-. -,:„O,,,,,, March 9, 2006 Page 2 of 6 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Consider Changing Demographics. a) Consider emerging trends such as the shifting in population growth rates from Larimer County to Weld County. b) Changing demographics & aging population. Has that be p considered and does that influence long-term model needs/choices? i�� )1' c) Allow for updates to local land use plans. Maybe inggi(k& ate revised results into updating the modeling during the FEIS. HD I C. Interchange/Infrastructure Upgrades. P. (��H ' ` Votes 8 a) Replacing aging & infrastructure - interch ��I itl Are interchanges (reconstructed & nei� Adequate growth? II�q� a) Interchanges at Vine Drive, LCR 36, W 8? i'�yyy{ ( 'Pig overpasses�ii b) Highway 7/N125 interchange—growth will de than diamond reconstruction. Consider cloverleaf. 'I c) The DEIS should include an initidill at N. 1-2 eridan. This is included in the DRCOG regional plan. g+' illin d) What is the difference in geom.. c iencieeti k box xl �''"1interchange upgrades"? e) Minimize ROW impac along I-25 enin I iljri h'ftibes. Use alternative interchanr • designs, not just d'�t0i bill � I iD. Make Surg1�hT/Rail l rface. _ Votes 6a) Package A.[,f+F commu€-, us servi om E-470 at US 85, west to the Colorado Blvd erc ` 4�yne rail station at SH 7. b) Holy 9 ,the ace li) Lipp ystem? c) 111 pp fer line? Ait opera r Ian Iransit are you using? Same for Bus & Rail? � �I ow many peo eall Sri, Denver from up here? Mostly local & intra-regional. 11i h Furt , xplore the of BRT for NI25 and BHSF Corridor a) Hay icated la on 1-25 for BRT that can be converted to rail in the future. b) BRT o mut I should be included along NI25 to connect to existing HOV lane. (See Dra ! c) Greeley BR Bns need parking demand in Greeley. (Bill Andrews 350-9793). d) Could BRT be ed on the BNSF corridor? Instead of CR? e) Will BRT complete with commuter rail if packaged together? f) Thanks for including a BRT station at Hwy 1-25 & Hwy 7 on Package B. Hope to see it on Package A too. Federal Highway Administration'Federal Transit Administration- Colorado Department of Transportation • J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\030906\TAC 030906.MM.doc Page E-280 }<; rca y- Technical Advisory Committee NORTH 12D '„t r } March 9, 2006 • Page 3 of 6 EIS 'L': information, cooperation. transportation. E. Well Designed Feeder Bus Service. Votes j 6 a) Feeder service to be compatible with existing users. b) Bus service between Platteville and Longmont on SH 66? (Package A: Serve commuter rail and commuter bus) c) Feeder bus service connection in downtown of smaller to ns. Loops within town. d) Feeder services important to total system function. di e) Bus service along SH 52 between 1-25 and Niwot? backages) f) Package B: Seems like you will now favor bus thr 7 from Loveland to Longmont. g) Package B: Feeder bus service on 287, Ft. Coll' L !pl nt.ll PIPF. CR West is Best. �� 9 'otes I 5 a) CR western alignment on BNSF best f of Ft. Collins land' & transportation adopted plans. III �IIIII b) Corridors: Are the rail corridors being t_ ully? 0JII' !!c) Corridors: Is 1-25 being pushed too much 1 (llbrridor? r.Commuter Rail and Transit do a) Commuter Rail instead of or .ti ?it:ankik,t. G. Will EIS fill Arte ' s? fIIIQ,II �pVotes 5 a) Will EIS fill in p l 'al gap II till" b) How does E dress v triunity' i ns for parallel arterial network along 1-25 corridor? R the gaps. l c) Package A: ral p ill1^ es fit nand use & transportation adopted plans. C " tioJI ork.11 IIIIIIIIIIUIr a) age lily he additional lanes on 1-25 don't extend north to Hwy 14. e do on B. iiibl'l arallel arterial e a IIc Dement of making 6 lanes north of Crossroads work (lckage A, the shoulinow clearly be identified on "Package A". ''11llII ff i H. Stati .tnctio 0!%'impacts. I Votes I 4 a) Commuf it Pie 1s & Terry, Sugarmill, or both? b) Multi-mode opportunities c) Park & Ride I ations near smaller towns. d) Encourage Todd's along future BRT, commuter rail routes. e) Provide infrastructure upgrades to station locations f) Stations impacts to local land use patterns. g) What are BRT stations like? Time needed to get on & off the highway. • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\0309061TAC 030906.MM.doc Page E-281 Technical Advisory Committee NORTH 1-25 a March 9, 2006 r4 �� Page 4 of 6 EIS - _ • information. cooperation. transportation./ I. Address Maintenance Concerns. I Votes I 2 a) North of SH 14. What is encompassed by "replacement of aging infrastructure"? b) Keep maintenance of infrastructure as a high priority. I J. Toll lane Access Control. .it, I Votes I 2 a) How is access control provided in toll lanes? (Packag�� ((t b) How do you enforce buffer separated toll lanes? 1 What is Role of Managed Lanes? ,II'+I1II IIII a) How will incident management be handled l ,one buffer) rated, managed lane? b) Consider with Package B (or A) - instead o barrier sepa (managed lanes, do one managed lane and one general p e lane. III I K. Flexibility & Ease of Future Upgrade Ills I Vote i�lt] 2 a) Key considerations: Will the design antic' j of upgrade to the system in the future. ,II iii b) Future flexibility and upgrad 111 1 �Ifillti bpi IIIIIIIIII�,, I-25 Commuter Rail — R.O.W. �[ I �� • a) Examine ROW nr i 1-25 so n r b) What's additio i o 11 red for ter rail ' tenter of 1-25? c) Preservati' ght-of- ion 1-2 light/heavy rail. Consider Opp 11 ities oMiWlanni florizon. a) Is the Warming Of rge of an area? p b) L E � nit' future consifFation of new or changing technologies. c) expla of tial phasing/build out of improvements. Everything tends tl, (I us on the 2 Eiiear. IlIIIIII� L. i s the proc: for preferred alternative selection Votes 1 a) What proces choosing the preferred alternative combinations? b) What wi r 9s be for choosing preferred alternatives? Mix & Match? c) Can piece package proceed independently? d) Does the DEI document the elimination of the other alternatives? How did we get from 8 to 2 packages? I M. Study Connections to DIA without going to Denver I Votes I 1 a) Rail service 1-25 to DIA? (Package A) b) Package A: Connections to DIA - Rail or BRT • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05. TAC12004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\030906\TAC 030906.MM.doc Page E-282 Technical Advisor.; Committee NORTH 1-25 'S'''t March 9, 2006 • Page 5 of 6 EIS .. information. cooperation. transportation. N. Are auxiliary lanes the best approach for the segments Votes 1 proposed? What are other alternatives for those segments? J a) With Package A, could auxiliary lane segment be a managed lane? b) Are auxiliary lanes the best way to handle short trips on N125 @ Loveland? c) How safe are auxiliary lanes? ��fl I O. Look at Other Operational Issues. II ' I Votes I 1 h) Package A: What distance is considered for then (tipm' a stations spacing for commuter rail? ? Loveland & 402. 100 ( �(( i) Package A:What's the distance between t ngmont sf4 and the next south of it? Is that an appropriate distance for station fling for a comrr rail? j) Package A: Add commuter rail station I & I-25. f' k) Package A: Add 8 lanes as on map f -470 so 1 to US 36. I) Co-ord. CR alignment with developme nnin. •'r 1 farious entities. 0 m) Co-ord. ROW acquisition with developme` a tg along 1-25 for CR. n) Extension of FasTracks liner it of Hwy 7 C+d 5 is important. P. Commuter Rail Route Justi ,;tio Votes 1 a) Go with vision and keep commu t'j ail wi 'l�`U0 direful . oute not through Boulder. • b) How would comm ' north to ' u . g. if CR in center of I-25? c) As US 85 devel oases a r ' (, d for co uter rail is justified (beyond the 20, year limit of I S), so ommu •s on 25 realize need to plan for this, and mention this in EIS. . -ion 85 limi' rrby'.tsign. t and travel time increases over time. I Q. How ill freigWlr, R i�� rmodated & managl Votes I 0 a) ' IRS tol10 ease researc�iational experience. b)� c to I jo a Ass freight truck traffic using HOT/managed lanes. I R. at is the app o, late rp.for feeder bus? I Votes I 0 a) S feeder bus t exists (Loveland for one). b) Will 4 er bus rou function primarily as intra-regional bus transit? c) What is sibility sking feeder bus to ride from Greeley to US 287 CR? "Feeder b FIRhomer. More of a regional bus service. I S. Drainage & F god Plain Issues. I Votes I 0 a) More completely address local drainage master planning and flood plain needs/constraints as relate to transportation infrastructure. b) Interchange upgrades — i.e., aware of Boxelder flood plain? • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC10309061TAC 030906.MM.doc Page E-283 Technical Advisory Committee N0RTI1125 1---? March 9, 2006 }� "1`= Page 6 of 6 EIS %' . • information. cooperation. transportation. 4. Transit Station/Interchange Access Update. A memo and graphics illustrating potential transit station locations were distributed for review. These will be discussed in detail at the next TAC meeting. ill11" Meeting Handouts: iifIIfiIIIi ii III Draft DEIS Packages Graphic dfid B 111(111 Transit Station Working Gro JI mo 1(111111 ''IIIIiI (1' IIIIIIIII►' IIIIIIIII IIIIIII' VIII!IIIIIIIIII q!� 1111 I! 114441 1141 q�I I��uII441I11111111. III►r IIIIIIIIIIII44I III 11111 • ,,IIIIIIII{IIt,1 li 14(11 IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi4p III lIIIIIIIIIIIII44llit 111llIII .ilillIj 1IIlli I14 IIIIIIII1111 IIf 144111 ll Next TAJI14 � : �ril 13, 2006 SW Weld County Services Bldg. 1:30 pm — 3:30 pm Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation • J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC10309061TAC 030906.MM.doc Page E-284 Meeting Minutes NoR1H 1-25 Technical Advisory Committee EIS • April 13,2006 Page 1 of 5 information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE - April 13, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Gayl Harrison SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Follow up from TAC/RCC Workshops • The TAC/RCC Workshop Input went very well. The focus question was 'What are the key considerations that should be addressed during the DEIS? The information compiled from this meeting was very informative. We combined all of the RCC/TAC responses. There were six categories for the breakout sessions: Package Elements, Cost & Financing, Land Use & Growth, Process & Evaluation, Regional Improvements and Expandability. A great deal of concern was expressed relating to cost, financing and future growth. • What's going on with the RCC? There has been no input on this issue. It's based on • involvement of each individual member. The TAC meetings have been very well attended, much more so than the RCC meetings. • Tom Anzia - In the Planning meetings TAC gets more into the details of the issues. In the past we felt the context of the packages needed to be more detailed. What other products can we bring to this process? • Dave Martinez - Does that represent all at the meeting? Should we send this document to all the members? It was agreed that we should. • Debra Baskett - In the column for votes, does the zero indicate that no votes were in on some of the issues, or was it even considered an issue? By being identified, it is considered an issue to at least one person. Kim Podobnik explained that once all the comments were compiled and moved into the different categories, some of the topics did not get any votes. A suggestion was made that we send out a Vote document to all members to see where the votes come in. • Tom A. - In future committee meetings we would like to structure public input into our meetings. We will be careful to get comments before and after from the public attendees. Kim Podobnik said there are many conduits for public input. • Federal Highway Administration.Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\Minutes TAC\TAC 0413061TAC 04130MM.doc Page E-285 Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 # : Technical Advisory Committee EIS it _Ap 7 Paril 13, 06 information, cooperation. transportation. • 9e 2 of 5 2. Congestion Management ■ Julie Morrison. - In the development of congestion management options she took ideas from the MPO's, CDOT and RTD plans and will schedule meetings with other transit groups. Congestion Management needs to match the build alternative. We should compare our proposals with DRCOG's for consistency. She will schedule a meeting with DRCOG. • Kathleen Bracke would like to make sure Ft. Collins is included in any discussions or planning meetings with Transit/Traffic divisions. • We are looking into the role of regional service, such that our services connect to and do not replace the local services. The context of'Package B' only for Ft. Collins, Loveland and Longmont is done very well. We do not want to compete with local agencies with the commuter rail service on Transit Service 'Package A'. • Car PoolNan Pool — We need to look at the relationship CDOT has in buying fuel at a discounted rate for many of the MPO's. Also we need to evaluate maintaining security as well as work on appearance and amenities for the carpool lots. There are no courtesy patrols at present, so that will also need to be evaluated. ■ A Transportation Management Organization (TMO) has been formed to address • support for congestion management. • Telecommuting has not been made a priority, and no funding is available. Therefore, no detailed analysis has been conducted. However, we are not precluding it either. • Land Use — CDOT cannot control zoning; however, cumulative impacts are an important part of this study to address land use influence. • Incident management— Currently, there are no courtesy patrols on 1-25. This will be considered as part of this project, since it can have a large impact on improving incident management. • Signal —This project will address implementing the US 85 coordination access control plan for commuter bus. • Ramp metering — This is included in the R4 ITS plan. SH 66 and north is where congestion warrants ramp metering. Exact locations will be determined with this project. • Bicycle/Pedestrian — These facilities will be provided to connect to sections, but will not over-implement the program. • Federal Highway,Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAMA/flouted TACITAC 0413061TAC 04130MM.doc Page E-286 S r- ' v'' vJ Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 I:14: Technical Advisory Committee EIS $` `ift ' �' • April 13,2006 Page 3 of 5 information. cooperation. transportation. • Real-Time Traffic— CDOT's ITS Department has developed design for fiber optic along 1-25. However, no funding is available to implement. Several municipalities have fiber optic almost all the way out to 1-25. Connections with these facilities will be considered. Coordinate with Rich Follmerof FHU on ITS and status of local connections. 3. TRANSIT • Last meetings for the transit planning were held on March 20, 2006 and March 23, 2006. Several station locations are still being evaluated. • Jennifer Merer/CB - The Transit Station evaluation process should wrap up in May. • Kathleen B. was considering adding a station near the proposed maintenance facility. The Ft. Collins Downtown Transit Center was already in the plan. • Interchange Design Development & Station Site Alternatives — From this perspective, we are planning to bring these two together for the May & June Highway Small Group meetings. • . Debra B. would like to know if in the BRT Station for Package B, is it feasible for a station south of SH 7? Steve Olson explained that BRT may not be feasible between SH 7 and 160th due to physical constraints and operations. We need to clearly show if BRT is or is not feasible at this location. The meeting scheduled for next week may need to be moved to a later date in order to have time to work through these issues. • Station Design Development - Is there a need to advise individuals that we will include Station Planning with the Interchange Planning? Yes, they will be notified. Currently, each group received schedules for both the Station Planning and Highway Small Group meetings. 4. Interchange Access • Tom Anzia - There are steps to identify how to carry forward into DEIS. That is covered in Michelle Steven's DEIS Interchange Planning meeting strategy memo. A list of people and businesses we have involved in this effort has been developed and updated to inform them of opportunities to interact with CDOT and FHWA. We have met with the seven Highway Small Groups asking for input and to identify interchange alternatives. • Meetings will continue up through June to identify consensus for these locations. Updates on Highway Small Group meeting schedules will be highlighted weekly. • Federal Highway Admini.Etration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\MInutes TAC\TAC 041306\TAC 04130MM,doc Page E-287 NORTH 1-25 3` Meeting Minutes arm Technical Advisory Committee EIS Sat Ap Par' 13, 06 information. cooperation. transportation. • 9e 4 of 5 5. Typical Sections • We are distributing the typical sections along the corridor for Package A and B. • Tom A. suggested that meetings need to cover what is going on with the process and provide a snapshot of where we are with the Highway Small Groups. We need to come up with alternative interchange configurations for the corridors without precluding other local plans. • Debra Baskett, City of Broomfield, wanted to know the status of the interchange at Sheridan & 125 north of Hwy 7? Is this interchange going to be acknowledged in alternatives to be considered? Todd Frisbie is analyzing this interchange to determine if enough traffic can be drawn off SH 7 with this interchange to justify the new interchange and minimize improvements needed at SH 7. If not, the interchange will be considered with an independent 1601 process. • What are the configurations in different areas and potential impacts? For US 34 and 1-25, several interchange configurations have been evaluated based on input. We recognize potential impacts and have considered variations from the design criteria. • Several areas along 1-25, local communities, do not consider 1-25 as rural. There is • an issue of what is rural and what is urban. We are basing the design on current standard requirements. Full impacts will be assessed and modified if necessary. This is part of our evaluation process. • Dave Klockeman, City of Loveland, has seen traffic numbers, but not a "level of service" feedback in developing documents. Have design alternatives with cost vs. land use been analyzed for each area, i.e., Mulberry, SH34? Tom Anzia noted that this will be included in the next series of meetings in May and June. • John Franklin - If we do not consider options in the process, it will appear that the design is forced. Even technical evaluations have to be questioned for local communities to base their decision. Many need to ask questions and get technical answers and clarification of "why" and "how"we are moving forward. It cannot appear as if this is a forced process. • Dave Martinez suggested that we reschedule the Interchange Planning Group meeting coming up next week for Group 2 on Thursday. He thought it was too soon to have enough comprehensive decisions made by that meeting date. It was later determined that the meeting should be held to discuss SH 7 Interchange and Region 6 coordination. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\Minutes TAC\TAC 041306\TAC 04130MM.doc Page E-288 Meeting Minutes NORTHI25rt Technical Advisory Committee EIS Wg.§2 • April le 5 of 13, 2006 Pa information. cooperation. transportation. 9 • Steve Olson - To All TAC representatives - Steve heard that there are developers out there who have not heard of the N125 and Interchange Planning process. He suggested that the TAC members provide some outreach to these developers as well. • Kathleen B. needs electronic information on the Prospect Interchange. Kim Podobnik will download the meeting schedule to a password protected area on the website for Kathleen to access. Kathleen also inquired if there will there be individualized meetings continuing? Yes, when necessary. • Debra B. is nervous about the different groups meeting with developers. • Tom A. reassured Debra B. that the developers meetings are more informational than anything else, and local community representatives are informed and invited to attend the upcoming Highway Small Group meetings. • Tom A. distributed a set of plans showing the interchange alternatives currently • being considered. These interchanges were previously presented in the Interchange Planning group meetings. The minutes from these meetings are also included in the packet. • We are evaluating roundabouts at the different interchanges for the ramp intersections as an option to consider for the FEIS. We want to assess the potential impact of signalized (diamond) interchanges in the DEIS. • There are a couple of unique interchanges for the FEIS that have traffic issues, so we are looking at another evaluation step to reduce the number of interchanges developed during DEIS. • Agencies will have follow-up from workshops. • We will also have follow-up on design processes. Public Comments Period • Dave White, Landowner, fascinated and very appreciative of the wonderful job that we are all doing in the development and design of this project. Next TAC Meeting: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:30 PM - 3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration-.Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\Mlnutes TAC\TAC 041306\TAC 04130MM.doc Page E-289 • \ } 0 . ) ) . 44 m ., ® CO q 0 . \ R4 1 O k o •E \ - ) / . {Si trz } , , ; § § 112 0 6 > ° 7 ) k § . } ( / E j ch/ \ 2 j \ in \ - § ) 2 ) ] ` Q / \ \ } a ~ c O. \LI- \ / \ + $ \ .17) b - E ~ E ` « ( b % a H « f ) 3 \ ) P ) f , e \ ! - / \ w $ E } \ § a / co C \ - % �& ± $ \ a j } i Et a a O § 0 - f � j .} / e - / / \ a j O= 12 3 \ w ) 2 ) ® ± ` E © o E $ 0 \ / O /0w [ \ } \ } } / 0 f F- \ 7 } la : ( ) ) \O \ § 2 $ ! / a ) E § § § m 2 d \2 � J 7 \ CO / / \ \ / I § + \ * ( \ k / , + e & $ / 2 = 3 § 6 6 $ o G § m § 2 E a e = > » G ' - 2\ $2 / CO 3 r 3 $ 3 3 3 « c $ / \ > \ / /\ Page E-290 CO © ° . �ii 11 \ in } ri4L i W $ ` 2 E ; a H \ 45 ) ai E c ( q \ si to Z ± § a \ j ! E E - R { R \ R t 9 •d / ( / E ) { Ca ! § w / { / ( \ / 2 « [ 2 ) { { § ® / / a ; ) % \ c 7 } \ ^ _ \ \ i ] 2 § 0 \ \ 9 / © ) al \ m — — / ) \ ® { 0 t r.- o ) E ) m ) \ \ \ a a) f E \ / ) / E | { , ) \ to c ) ca a o \ \ . a H ) ) k .E x \ ) Cz = f c 2 2 f = , , Pa / } s j ) \ / \ ) = as CO O 2 p ( \ / § ® ; \ } \ \ \ } ) ) c Lb i = J O W f o G J & » e e 0 0 0 0 ! • tl ` tt II ( Ct & k . 0 o L, / 0 o / & 16 ■ 2 3 ) ) 7 ® } \ $ c) ) C c o \ 4 / e 2 f 2 E ) _ - ) « 4 § -�. �. ) \ � " / } O / ® e w 2 J \ « k \ § \ ] o \ ) a ) j \ \ / Cl) - \ \ 2 0 / }` k. Page E-291 }i r j 2 0 % \ § , \ • E i f — E. / } 1,... E § o ' 2 ( ) j CO } \ E \ (.7 ( k 7 = ] y e » E ) Ill [ } ) \ \ \ \ \ i / \ ! \ / \ \ E / a) 2 / § j C) ° , ea ` ` f } - -\ \ § \ / } CO \ \ \ \ / L. ) \ a P. \ a ) y / ] \ ) ILI 7 ( ; i ( 5 / J / ) \ - ) c a) _ � a) S7 k \ § ) E a. « d § 3 C 7 \ ( J ® \ § 3 ] o \ / / / O _ ) § ® _ ® § { © { ®ra ? e § § % 0Ct ( t a Ga o 0 } ) ) ) e Gm O / k H H /k \ j H \ om } } { 7 ) ( C IV )O \ >- 2 ! b. cos § ( _ N4 ® ® E : E c ( / }/ m J ) \ ( ) \ { - \ -. \ us ( / • § a % & ; a CO \ , = •17 ) k « 2 / / I- � 2 \ < / / ) ® \ / \ \ \ \ CO k ) \ } j Page E-292 co 0 - vFl" t'j o 0 :P4 cv N a 41 w y u) to ca CO H i U V) O a b ? ? J O ? -0 E g vl ° `o' ; Q O L O N O E U O $ O U > C -Oo p c 0 U N O > c O ELI r aNi ° E N '� o o E 03 C c Sj 'C -2 a) ., N .a 0 •U 9 O .C e U C (4 f` 3 O C D- •C C V $ 3E 15 O O U U y O SJ Q) O O Cj U . Ti > tom` ` O N C A Q O L a co -O Q) `�' a) 4) E ctf O O ` a1 d C E E 00 N c •� •m s- N C U Nal o ❑ E ,_ Z Y U —, C� c Z i...- 2i -O 3 ii O I I .� U 'ra o a O o b m i ti i • 0 c ?' O g c °' V) C °'Q. e a C En ° =z.C U P. o ~ aW E O c O N 0 v a`� o L 2 r. > F- E c n c E 0 0 0 Co I— h 0 m 0 I 5—i °—,' 5o 0 0 F- Iv 1.3 4o F' `F+..u c Z 111 e v 7v �` J 4:( s `� a O U ;Ei o a G o cQc 0 — N a) c c 2 c aNi a acov o w z per, :c1:3 ca) a� c m o o Et. • Z `'' ap Z m a� m a) °' p p• d `` • W q�q (a a O U O O i) cQ O ? o 1- Qv- 0. F- O C7 C -, Z -3 Y U -, 0 -, 2 F- U) --, > s Page E-293 t a ei M . (i 8p fkgpp.'M. O ri 1 . O W r� Cl, N m a C 8 a n • a C N 0 O Z co Q ( 13 S'� E N N O Cl) 00 0 N tj :, , O Er pE .c O O U o=o N CO R N U c' *RI d O O O • • 0 0 N U > N =I 0) O C -° m 6 E h! o .E m u E 0 v r -°° .° 'D E m Cl)6 E O L 3 O r U t ro c c o a .O E -0 O 'O ro 0 0 A CJ 8 ° r o aa11 c U O. .O on V f0 L. > c .2 c Y Si Ec ° °� o ° 3 n ro o a a g O N TD U co 0 it m E O N N 'O N N 'G N °j > -o 'L" N N U E Y o C7 , L. o t`5 2 CO COp w '� Q CO co u d_ b e a at aOj do _a D o IC c c di -o •� O O a c e 0 o W O O c cr 5 CO 9 a c c g • C C m ° 3 c e a i-- a H Q a 0. C 0) -O C c C ° N c o > _ c o O G Y m C N O y t c c 0) c (0 ` in `y O E N O O O I-- C O > U ^' k E. a m r0 a m 0 U o 0 m O J lL ° V- r.. L. � CO -° LL U N ¢ ! O E ° d 4.= 0 c v -a o O > E o 11- 4-0 CI) ° o N 3 ?i > c ❑ ro E c '• eo 0 _c° a CO C) F°- I- 0 0 U 0 0 Q a 0 F O I-° u a11. w e k t - ct 31 5 0 r. C) - o a 6 N5 co O6 0 0 M ��'. O 'Y c U -0 N E c 2 Q N O CO .� ca 'O N O '.N.. NCO 7 N jp t a z a Z CO a U a aJ C CC N d e .c cn N E o CO 'T ' ,n a ° ° _ et o = J Y a N N -0 § N N to CO U) to c • w 2 co b c`o ro E 'c c �+ �° o c rn as ° r r m o m c O ro ro ro E c d co o F- CC r a 0 2 Y 0 CD H Q m m 2 ❑ -, < m v) Page E-294 tY! .J ) • ,„„ jl S i J 3'3O c.!? q7 a nl '—' • 4/)W v; ia In E' a / n a o a c �y -O > E " a) _1 p E a o O O E Y_ ` Q U S U 7 O y c o in E 0 c a y ` as q 7 0 p O E p 0 3 O 'a O 3 Lu E c ° ° 0 a • o O 2 1.3 @ ti. , A ac co O i 00. Z ) c@ •c t @ -9 O z > E —p c 0 > O c - 0 0iii O 3 v E 2 E oiii 15 U - coo a c c @ 3 3 .2 ,a? 2 t o 2 0 a a -o c .3 z ≥ -o - ) c Z . a v g J 0. o ', U C .� O vJ c ♦/C1 - G-..O 02 n 0 N .0 25 r I y o u' • o o > _� U -. c c € E Y $ E z "t cn ° 0 c S § m o *f m a`) ro Q .°a 0 0 °-• vv9 U .0 Q o o 0 3 3 n v' c 3 c . 70 3 c c p c °o v ` t- i- F- l- z o o ti gyp- l- v i- _`° , U, W c tl b ' v m Q C'. 0 o li C� N C 03•• C .4, l-,'T O M E > c C O Q] U U0.. Z CA c 01 0 RI 5, F- co 113 ro c o °? t Ask z " a. ca a) 0 m t`° 0 > a' ° +� _ u0 d t C c~ c 0 c c c 0o 0 w q a4 c:? R O = o o = 0 a v o E 0 Y O m 6 F- QrCL C CC - CO O 0 -, C - Z 0. O % ; / Page E-295 If -- - , r71 i I M a cv # . .,i.s.i mn 0 N a ,—, 1 h .! r�, w 1 2 iz O. 0 E a 3 z cx , 1 ti to 4 S CS O 44. (o O _ v c . I m , n a0 y s* b ti Et-, i rI fa fi 4' Co r ao a Z. W C au cl) O i - a V y• a 61 o c d 0 0 0 ti O M s IIh cti z. 0 s IS Page E-296 Meeting Minutes NORM I25 y; • Technical Advisory Committee EIS • S3 May 11, 2006 FM toinformation. cooperation transportation. 1:30 P PM 3:00 Page 1 of 2 MEETING DATE - May 11, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. Introductions • Introductions to new people: 1. Efren Rodriguez, Town of Platteville Platteville 2. Nicole Winterton —CDOT fill-in for Sharleen Bakeman 3. Chris Shiel, NFRMPO intern B. No Public Comment C. Design Development • Interchange/highway meetings cancelled in May. • Addressing a variety of environmental issues. • June meetings will integrate highway/transit components. • D. Land Use (Ben Herman & Darcie White) • See presentation for detailed information. Questions/Answers: 1. Bob Garcia —Do you account for growth in SW Weld? a. Yes, it is happening sooner rather than later. 2. Is it compatible with other studies in the area? a. Yes, for the most part, some of the studies are 5+ years old. This study is using an updated data set. 3. Debra Baskett—What should a community do if they feel the model is not reflective of the land use? a. Contact the team and we will set-up additional coordination. b. Continue to coordinate with MPO's so that updates reflect community information. c. Not that unheard of to have errors in MPO data. Talk with DRCOG. d. If necessary, we could conduct a sensitivity test for Broomfield or a particular area of concern. 4. Vickie M. — Can we say that the SW County is now at what was projected in 2020? a. Chris P. reiterated that control totals still appear correct. 5. Bob G. — If you change land use to support transit, does it help? a. Yes it helps. Evaluation will consider this. 6. Gene P. - How sensitive is the model to gas price? a. Chris P. — The model is not really designed to, but we conducted a sensitivity test to gas prices. Doubling the cost of auto ownership increased ridership by 90%. b. Gene P. —This should be well documented. People are already making these changes and shifts in travel patterns. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\051106\TAC 051106 MM.doc Page E-297 Meeting Minutes NOR I-25 - Technical Advisory Committee EIS May 11, 2006 • 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation, transportation. Page 2 of 2 7. Kathleen B. —Add Fort Collins to list of TOD development and planning. FC has highway development at 1-25 and transit development plans along US 287. 8. Did we take Greeley trip patterns into account? a. Yes 9. Vicky M. will take a copy of presentation to John Daggett. 10. Gene P. —Land use is higher density. Need to have it conceptually approved so that policymakers can make policy to encourage appropriate transit land use. 11. Bob G. — EIS is not a land use planning document. 12. Dave K. — He has been hearing a lot about people wanting to live, work and play in the same place. The model doesn't necessarily take into account this change in lifestyle. Expandability (Julie Morrison and Tom Anzia) (See handout of presentation) • Vicky M. — Capacity of rail cars at 160 is low. Julie M—that is to be conservative. • Debra B. — Feels comfortable with these estimates. BRT is flexible. Can travel to population centers, which is a benefit. • Hope that this meeting will put some of these discussions to rest. • Vicky M. — Please add "Beyond 2030" to slides. • Fred Jones -Appears that on BRT, Greeley could utilize a lot of the capacity. • Debra - HOV lane will be open to single occupant vehicles June 2n° paying a toll. We can use the information found there to evaluate use/utilization. • • Tom Anzia discussed possibility of highway expansion beyond 2030. Public Comments Period • Dave and Rick White — Capacity needs balanced TOD system. Communities around the country are trying to force TOD. Tech Center is looking at what is right and what was done wrong. Balance to TOD will be important. • Tom. A. — Local entities will consider this balance. • Rick/Dave —Adverse impacts on future expansion. Land owners don't want implied condemnation. Next TAC Meeting: Thursday, June 8, 2006 1:30 PM -3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex r • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC\051106\TAC 051106 MM.tloc Page E-298 „ r r { o co . < a rJmb �y¢y S In F_”) -4 . Di' en r+ W N a j x y 0 o > o N H 0 NE a; Q) ° o i a U w0 p=p ..> a Q f a 5'> h v) a > U «5. Z Q d o E' o 0 O O a 0 E@ a w t z„ 0i o a E 0 y oai a) m 'g Eo a ai o oo o. c E E 0 W ci @ 3O a 3 45 °a 6 c .- . 0 .c 3 c o 'S f° E m` N N di n o E E > E - E u !i:n I- CO .n la m a .O 0 a 0 cap o a a 0 a '1 Y I a a a V c v F v ?e- O f t o Ir a u W .,13. yak coE c c LIJ __ = v o ° • c o o g +�ii. r a c w Q C C0 a, e W c cCp c Z 4- - Z m r a f t- 0 P d o i3 o O o 5 8 Si in 0 — Z. c O5 N 3- b rn a) o 0 c 2 2 w E .� 2 _ 0 0 'Oc 'ILIc N m c x E °� w ro Q m 0 a 2 3U 0 w c 'c > o r O N O 4- c o a) o 0 O CO LJ a o En 0 O E 4-- e m c `o o o f o U 3' N 3, U E 3 �t U U IL U U U co u. g ti U o L.L. 0 a U I-. go �\ v W C i W _A _NN a U p } U o a▪ E5 c n a) Em G a3 t V O M a G C y iroa) O o N E Q N � 0 2 47 ca.—. ,m m m ti 0 .2 m E E • E c E o d • U e- W 5 c a) m a) a) c E E J E O 9 V Up a ` Q N r al m m N m c`c co U V co r W QM 4.2 N al �" H N 2 Oa U� > 0 c en I— � r- coY 2 C7 u) U n ti Page E-299 Y.,s ,1 i 04 m i.. r a 4 ..„114 ' a ✓ Hu'. 4 W Z y Co ' ti=i .1a o ai E 8 "_ • O y c 6 o E CO 0 E o O ai Qm m o' O 0 U 0 caa O a y a m E c N O 17;— m V (R O C O 0 'O L E C •h O 0 W a O. 0 a 3 @ g 3 O°, c Cl) o o d o n O E m .i T53 @ ° m 0 N@ Oc o z c m, c @@ m E a y c II o@ C� .0 @ E .2 m 3 c O O m@ m -0@@ c :a `m .Y @ .qq O m ? 'C g y C c ,, N O; N na R O N m O C - .2 N a) O' - 'p • a '- ai Ch �i E a W a n m m O c m m m E 'Z9 a cn a) m a m E E I-- X U E• P a. I C o .. U c • O O N .. Q a) N CO c 2 5 c cr o e n w0 R Et,. n rn O C .2 c m `o `o o 9. 'O 'E O y ca .C c o6 y n 0 -' C U co C O J 'c m a O O c C .5 he O 2 m 3 3 2 Cn . 2 g u o O Q O o o E' 0 —O 0 m I U N c 0 Q . O O C C .O C C c .0 L. 0 43 'E E E m F- U W OO FO I2 ti FO- FO- o U- O Uea U J U -5 n a b w V d 0 2 2 0- U O 3 Y U O a. U e 9 a) O J L _ V p M U ti '� m m y cis ,_ O`1 C _ c _Jo4 N O O a7 •C �+ O' c O N J O Y a) O• _ O -, U J Z 0 C O W v0_I c 0 = a1 L IL c h -O m Y cc?) z w a� O jy E Y ao w N c m .o .h ,_ m .O = } off U O m W a@ _0 ii 01 O • w a M as m N O 0 sO W c c 'O Q) C O "0 1.1 I �` c , t- � � rn co mi" -I o o 0_ w < < o m 5 O - m0 v` co 2.CO s Page E-300 ` :� 1-4a m • ( W « g \ $ ( a t 2 } \ 6 3 e , ( Cr \ \ \ . \ E } \ § o [ 7 0 $ / / \ } & { \ > § ! \ [ j t f \ : \ ( z _ N \ CO \ E \ / \ { / \ ( • } ± j ) ) ) / \ \ : 2 ) e 01" { | ± 6. o ) \ O ) -a113 S / .I. • CO II / \ i ( — \ \ ! ) • § ) t \ e ` 2 ) % J R § & » a @ ® & } / \ ( { 0 c c ) CO _ -, , E § 52 } \ irt a. ? { \ I__ § § » ® § sa 2 2 § f § ® 0 } ® /7 § 0 z - C ow° 0 f c /« G # a z 0 o co 0 o } H H O 0 •m e o om / » e \ k k c & ( k \ \ f >- ■ 0 \ o a, m - § @ O > -C C 2 \ d \ 0 E E c ® .E / \ E ) § a ` § § \ ) § � w� ] ! It / k ® © ® S _ � � ! ) c;3, f 7 17 \ « ) , 37. { / ] Z § 22 / { / k k j H \ 0 \ \ \ 0 7 / ) j Page E-301 Z ! -- tt — . . , co , : § in q , rThi I / ; g m , / k / E _ § ! ( 2 ` 7 ® R @ ( E \ »J / & 0 : j / / , \ ' \ e \ g p g $ \ ' \ ! | } $ \ \ E / / a ) § } \ ] E * _ ® \. - E q ) \pi 3E ?) } 0 \ / ) z \ ) 0 \ / \ \ / \ \ y %-, \ } I S ii ) \ CO ! I . \ \ \ 5 \ § ; » / = 2 2 j : Z/ - - % $ _ 0 0 O k (cc H COL. ) \ / / cis zu: / / \ \ { zi„ ! te 0 \ § 0 - - k - \ to ) 0 \ U 0 ± H w 0 COa 0 LT e *\ 0 0 0 e } a ) § / § § id • N $ § NJ§ _ ) o ( KR � CD t \ ( k L. / ® ) E z 2 ) » 0 T / § /0 / \ / } ) } k \ 3 ) J e \ / ) § k / § I ) ) \ ) 0 j \ ) « \ CO \ \ \ ge E-302 — \ 2 > \ l $ . B 46. k ) H ] t , �6 co ; E z 2 ( / f } j ) ) \ use 8 116 § ^ k $ ` _ % f \ E \ E = \ } c 3 . o ° § & : a { ( { / \ ) \ k j \ \ \ \ o o } k 0 \ / ) ( , / { E g § ) ra E j / ) / 2 ) $ ) ] 3 \ # 2 i } ® _ { ) 3 & / / 5 0 p / cI3 \ •\ N. • j }/ ) { 3 z % z e m ) cu \ e » _ / ; o y 2 § ] ± > m � % _ %,_ { , f - m j \ t \ ) ) \ � ) / / j ) \ ct 2 ® ® k } \ \ ) 0 / H H 1- } \ 00 } \ < 0 } E / La ! w \ \ \ \ \ } A q I ) s2 � d — , C6 2 ` _ ) q22 J e \ \ ( CO 2 ) t ) ) / >, / \ \ f \ ! ; /� $ § ( / \ $ 2 0 2 $ i ! A„ $ \ f ) ) § % 0 ) ) 0 0 H \ \ co ) \ ) \ \ s < { • \ Page E-303 ' y 4l ] Crl CI CO _ m • � i r., \ •; ® _ ; § / § a c \ [ \ t b § \ \ \ 2 \ % r § e j 7 ; G a g ! LIJ 49 3 k / » c \ } k \ } / \ ] / \ ° k * ` ` { § r. Cr C $1 k ) \ 7 I. \ = 2 \ / k ) \ c \ } § \ \ { \ ) 3 ! ] - _ ). 000 j } { [ ) o \ 0 c a ® ® _ ( ! o § § ) ® c . k 4- � ) E \ CO \ ( ( N ( \ ( \ ( 7 § \ $ } k \ ) \ a I A F- e zo { e ± e O 0 a ] \ / P. ( ! / § ( - 4 & ■ 0 \ 2 - o E oQ ® _ < _joO \ \ ) / _ \ ! R E \ .- \ e c / &/ ) / / \ J ( c \ co\ \ { \ ) \ / ; k222 / § m ) \ / \ n ) ) \ ) \ ) k \ Page E-304 ` 1 t- 0 • \ i .wt m eIn CA j / i / ) 9 , ) \ / ct ti) / Z / \ \ i ! \) m ( ~ \ \ ® } e / t Z \ » ^ 3 . ...r5 c Y 4 ..51, o / \ . I -J ) ) / \ ) } Cu » / ) k ® ~ - ( } 'V, m '---z. ) ® 0. / •. Q U , Z Z } ) ) $ ) / ( « ) \ — a I u ± « $ a./ g , Sc,, g } w & a / G $ �� ' 1. = ¢ aeo @ .2ei �g / y a ( / 4 ` _ a. \ m ) ) ) 2 i�444\7 . e \ Page E-305 Meeting Minutes iNORFH 12,D Technical Advisory Committee EIS Regional Coordination Committee • June 06, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 1 of 1 MEETING DATE - June 06, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: FHU —Tom Anzia SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. INTRODUCTIONS • No new people were in attendance. B. No PUBLIC COMMENTS C. TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING UPDATE • Chris Primus gave a brief update on the status of the model and issues. D. PACKAGE ELEMENTS WORKSHOP • The workshop is summarized in the attached outline of discussion points and suggestions made on issues regarding: • Interchanges • BRT/Rail interface • Bus feeder systems • • The travel demand model network; and • Station functions and impacts NEXT TAC MEETING: Thursday- July 13, 2006 Time: To Be Determined SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportatlaage E-306 Package Elements Interchanges Interchange/Infrastructure Upgrades Votes 8 a) Replacing aging & infrastructure - interchanges b) Interchanges at Vine Drive, LCR 36, WCR 38? (Existing overpasses) c) Highway 7/North 1-25 interchange —growth will demand more than diamond reconstruction. Consider cloverleaf. d) The DEIS should include an interchange at N. 1-25 & Sheridan. This is included in the DRCOG regional plan. e) What is the difference in geom.. deficiencies (black box)vs. "interchange upgrades"? f) Minimize ROW impacts along 1-25 widening and at interchanges. Use alternative interchange designs, not just diamonds. Improve Function of Interchanges Votes 0 a) Make the interchange at 254 (Johnson's Corner) a full interchange b) Interchange access must be better than today and not complicate system (cost & construction) c) Need a "fly-over" interchange at I-25 & Hwy 34. Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments • Request more participation in the interchange working group meetings • Provide information on various configurations being considered • Make sure of BRT/Rail Interface Votes 6 a) Package A: Add commuter bus service from E-470 at US 85, west to the Colorado Blvd interchange and connect to rail station at SH 7. b) How does the BRT interface with RTD system? c) Will BRT transfer at RTD line? d) What operating plans for transit are you using? Same for Bus & Rail? e) How many people really go to Denver from up here? Mostly local & intra- regional. f) Have dedicated lanes on 1-25 for BRT that can be converted to rail in the future. (addressed last month) g) BRT or commuter bus should be included along N125 to connect to existing HOV lane. h) Greeley BRT stations need parking demand in Greeley. (Bill Andrews 350-9793). i) Could BRT be used on the BNSF corridor? Instead of CR? j) Will BRT complete with commuter rail if packaged together? k) Thanks for including a BRT station at Hwy 1-25 & Hwy 7 on Package B. Hope to see it on Package A too. Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments • Provide illustrations of BRT median stations • Provide more detailed explanation of BRT service • Provide white papers on BRT to CR conversion and BRT on BNSF • evaluation Page E-307 Feeder Bus System • Votes 6 Well Designed Feeder Bus Service a) Feeder service to be compatible with existing users. b) Bus service between Platteville and Longmont on SH 66? (Package A: Serve commuter rail and commuter bus) c) Feeder bus service connection in downtown of smaller towns. Loops within town. d) Feeder services important to total system function. e) Bus service along SH 52 between 1-25 and Niwot? (Both packages) f) Package B: Seems like you will now favor bus through 287 from Loveland to Longmont. g) Package B: Feeder bus service on 287, Ft. Collins to Longmont. What is the appropriate role for feeder bus? Votes 0 a) Show feeder bus that exists (Loveland for one). b) Will feeder bus routes function primarily as intra-regional bus transit? c) What is feasibility of asking feeder bus to ride from Greeley to US 287 CR? "Feeder bus" a misnomer. More of a regional bus service. Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments • Add bus service on SH 66 and SH 52 • Provide information on what service provides, who uses it and how much it costs 6. CR West is Best Votes 5 a) CR western alignment on BNSF best fits City of Ft. Collins land use & • transportation adopted plans. b) Corridors: Are the rail corridors being used fully? c) Corridors: Is 1-25 being pushed too much as main corridor? d) Commuter Rail instead of or addition to N-S transit. Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments • Packages currently address these comments Travel Demand Model Network 5 Votes Will EIS fill Arterial Gaps a) Will EIS fill in parallel arterial gaps? b) How does EIS address community's plans for parallel arterial network along 1-25 corridor? Fill in the gaps? c) Package A: General purpose lanes fit city land use & transportation adopted plans. d) Package A: Clarify why the additional lanes on 1-25 don't extend north to Hwy 14. They do on B. e) If parallel arterials are a key element of making 6 lanes north of Crossroads work on Package A, then it should now clearly be identified on "Package A". Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments • Page E-308 • • Provide information on No Action Alternative, No Action Network and Additional No Action Improvements Stations 8. Station Functions & Impacts Votes 4 d) Commuter rail to serve 1st & Terry, Sugar Mill, or both? e) Multi-modal station opportunities f) Park & Ride locations near smaller towns. g) Encourage TOD along future BRT, commuter rail routes. h) Provide infrastructure upgrades to station locations i) Stations impacts to local land use patterns. j) What are BRT stations like? Time needed to get on & off the highway. Suggestions on how to address the questions and comments 9. Toll lane Access Control Votes 2 a) How is access control provided in toll lanes? (Package B) b) How do you enforce buffer separated toll lanes? c) How will incident management be handled with one buffer separated, managed lane? d) Consider with Package B (or A) - instead of two barrier separated managed lanes, do one managed lane and one general purpose lane. • 4. Look at Other Operational Issues. Votes 1 a) Package A: What distance is considered for these average stations spacing for commuter rail? ? Loveland & 402 b) Package A: What's the distance between the Longmont station and the next south of it? Is that an appropriate distance for station spacing for a commuter rail? c) Package A: Add commuter rail station at 119 & 1-25 d) Package A: Add 8 lanes as ???? from E-470 south to US 36. e) Co-ord. CR alignment with development planning in various entities. f) Co-ord. ROW acquisition with development planning along 1-25 for CR. g) Extension of FasTracks line north of Hwy 7 @ 1-25 is important. 18. Study Connections to DIA Votes 1 a) DIA without going to Denver . DIA as priority. b) Rail service 1-25 to DIA? (Package A) c) Package A: Connections to DIA - Rail or BRT G. Evaluate Travel Time Votes 1 I) Minimize time to DUS. m) Minimize travel time to main transit. n) Minimize portal to portal transit time. o) HOT lanes for commuter buses, need maximum priority. p) For 2030, plan for a service level B or C? Page E-309 q) Need 8 lanes from Hwy 52 to Hwy exit at Harmony. Build 6 lanes now and the • other 2 lanes later? r) Congestion — must be less than today. Better than 'D'. s) Decrease travel times. t) Quick Travel to Denver. Votes 1 19. Are auxiliary lanes the best approach for the segments proposed? What are other alternatives for those segments? a) With Package A, could auxiliary lane segment be a managed lane? b) Are auxiliary lanes the best way to handle short trips on NI25 @ Loveland? c) How safe are auxiliary lanes? • Page E-310 . } ( • c4, ,l § V) a nt frit / to W ta ; \ a) c ai y \ > \ . E \ Z 7 E ® © ® ® E / R - ) \ E \ \ § \ \ / § E j \ § Q ! ° E \ 0 « I = e L. O a _ f ) / \ ) / a f \ 2 ( \ e \ ) \ \ & .c { 7 { \ \ # -6- ) \ § f ) { ) E = F ® F \ ( \ I. 2 H A ) ) 0 G . m \ ) a ] § # \ E } / & c ) i•- ....a•••14 s2 \ co 0 J ill O ) \ t \ / �CO � ea \ 2 > c \ / j ) (-a % > f w } o ) m � / \ ; w « z { « C a.4 ) 5 co , \ _ _ _| % \ ) \ 7 ] ) ] CO \ j \ 0 0 e * ) \ \ } 0 0 al 0 0 ( \ ( 0 0 ) 0 0 ( / R \ k a = 0 0 C5 03 < l e e e 0 0 - - -a 41 $ / © } /W. 1 a. o S o / � 2 \ » § § d \ f g ) § ) 2 f o ° , n 3 ] # & - = E [ = E o 'O.5 2 - • § \) ) ; E / § » / § / CO 3 Q 6 6 \ / k 3 a § i g 2 « b z a » 2 2 = e c � j ) k / § e g « 0 0 0 « \ 3 ) 0 w 00j0 Page E-311 \ -- - it » ( 8 0 ; \ , um ' ; nl q W ; 2 ° ; ® E. co \ , / c E 0 In - 2 ® & / \ 2 R \ ` 7 ( 9 C2 \ \ \ \ / \ \ ) ( [ / $ / / ) _ # 7 3 \ / \ \ } } \ \ E } / \ / j § & \ ) % 4 j r. C ( _ _ ° ! ( ] 3 k ) a e k m } \ c ) ) \ \ ,a ''g , i & k ) 3 \ , _ } f 2 # / _/ c \ ) § � a H > $ _ _ \ U. § ) . / i \ / & § \ # / oa % ) I * ( ... ] 1._. CO { \ 2 - / + m27 j \ \ / d / » R O C C / \ \ \ ) ) /f ( -c \ o u f o e J / I e e e a 0 0 o ] o ) { ] _ 1 4.. s 6 �cc G k CI k � a \ m § § ( f _ % E ] _ _ N w ® m _, J \ / \ 0 ) = - co \ c ( o ()Z f : co ` ° � 0 V \ \ j t Ill g m C 2 } 7 z & ; . § -, .-• co k ) I / g C ] m / - \ 7 ] 0 e / ge E-312 < ! -- , - \ i \ ] In E § p_14 44 iii ) cu / i •{ - \ O. 2 . § / g _ k \ \ \ \ E { , a g j - } / \ \ / § ` ca \ { ) - ) i c — ( )) / : § EP.-O C_ + \ a till \ ) E 6 a (\ ) s b e i f / u_ _ _ \ % f / ± i & Liti (1 i , J a \ ) \\ } i cre E ) c :a§ § \ ) ® \ ca q § ( f 2t ) # r § / « E ! } a y \ ( o To _ § p / § y 5 \ } t \ a'\k 0 / \ \� -• \\� } \ \ ) e om O O / J e « e 0 ] I- Dijon 0 11 0 0 / \ i 1 / \ \ } 6 g o. o � { 2 S2 CI; _ ) < : clo e = ® E @ § ) § ` E E E ` _ ; / 2I-a # ( ] k \ ( 7 ) CO \ \ - S ) { l . � ke \ _ / , 1 ± } -) « 2 2 2 / / f E « @ / } & _ . ki § % / U. H ) a f } \ 0 2 0 2 / CO / } I- \ gePa E-313 uz -- -- - ti C41 l.,.-, a Npp T p en c I H )j...4 1.1..I o N ti N 7 vo. H i op u., y 0 1 a EO Q 3 EO N J Z .: Q q o o c ° E o °° m aY o ° 0 U C N �6 ` co U R O 'CO N 0 y a >, N 7 ° E '- q N Q ° 'O 7 0 C. a) � W , m t.it ` T ^0+ t o V a E 0 N E N C 3 -N �° /R,�� U C a) 3 V O✓ U @ —> .Q @@ ,q E E g@ 2 ° @@ E o 6- a) C E, m 0 ? c E a a> o O E d Rqi L L- as 0 = m cc) .N 0 Q R a> >. R ° E °, z °� Y U --) O g z E° a .0 3 U a c 0 b e. I. I d e I4^ m e V! C C ° , • cc' v y 6: C °: b N k 0 o N = 4.O Go N 2. O > y w 0 C a) a) N y O C a a U fn cil 0. '5 = 0 Eon ,_ V U O $ _ p No Q m N ° ° m U N co gr. w 0 'p m 'C . - a) E C a0 a : a`3 .o o L' m m E- E w E.. E m m o o m a) a t . t , C 0 0 3 ° E _a U J ,2 2 U CO U IL U '7 U CS U ° F°- O J v a W E a O Oo a N H V J a 0) N N ` N C m m in o C m CM m C CD m R E 0 o O U R ,0 R N a) a1 y N 03 0 _ C a N O N F 3 Z a ❑U at,p' t- CD C 'E p' a) a) O p ,n a ra ` z 'cis kg 03-d g d 2 2 ° °' y 2 2 ° a Z z O O Q. a m i • W z M 07 C N Q) Ya. c = Y N U C C L' > N C O • I- w r y ate. (.� K Z di Y U CD -, Z H vl > U CQ 2 Page E-314 « » : --�. �� . , . . . �� I . _ _ . \ § • a \ ) g 2. ; tii 2 \ E b \ § 61' - 2 § Z S / ) _ } { ui j } o ) � E & § { \ \ \ \ \ ) ® M E ) « \ 8 / { _ _ t « 2 2 i { ) ] \ / < ^ \ \ { / \ k } » El? ( al \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ jI \ \ / / E 1 \ , f , j 63 \ \ Iii o \ El O® t I ®z a. } I co ) � ) \ y { » --- -., \ j / J ) ) ) j j / } ) ) P. \ CD as..-1 /\j if, E O } » J e / n m 000 Q ± 7 / ) f ) } } 7 _ ) ( k ; § ao \ \ / ) } © / / t ) m c ` ; E « § ee k ] { •) ` a) ® ) \ f f = { CO § k \. # � O 0 ` E ) \ ! / / \ -co « C.) ° ! 2 ( a p c e ) 0) ® 7 c 2 . of § B 7 } ] 3 ( / 4 ) CO CO R \ ) \ / 6 A / Page E-315 2 § -a— I , I I r —7----1— \ i ! } ' § \ q m , [ / q ; _ ( ). $ , ; « W y \ 1 13 ; ( & _ ) ea \ / \ \ ° } E t @ Si 2 7 ) 5 to \ \ \ \ \ / t 3 ko ) : \ ( ± E '6 ( % _ . ` _/ d ) o t 2 ( co d \ \ i \ ` ( I-. + { a - 2 3 y / / ) c \ 2 § c / / { § ± , � I \ k % / / \ � \ 0 §� \ R j $ \2 § O 2 \ \ ( C % — , » ) ] { E 4.4) y ) J eoc § $ \ * [ s L. `3 a cc ° t » § 2 6 t < { y § ( , -J co c } ( \ } H / H } / c \ k 7 k \ \ k } ` \ E \ 2 a. 0o 2O % o \ G ksc' \ e c ( ( S c E ) m k � « qee m r \ - H * / aTy > : - 3 3 ® J ) \/ / % } { 12 k c + c _ } { } - : : / ) 2 % / m ) \ / \ / ) ) \ ) § ) ] Page E-316 Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 • Technical advisory Committee EIS July 13, 2006 1 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE: July 13, 2006 LOCATION:: Southwest Weld County ATTENDEES: See Sign-In Sheet PREPARERS: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig —Holly Buck/Gayl Harrison PRACO/Kim Podobnik MEETING PURPOSE: SH 119 / North Metro Connection SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION • Tom Anzia —Quick background on what the project is now, and where we have been. If you have additional questions, we will follow-up after the meeting. • Paul Brown — Reviewed goals and objectives for connection. • Paul B. - Reviewed alternatives that were considered: A—V, SH 119, CR 7, 1-25, Dent Line, GWRR, Boulder Industrial lead. • Identified V as the draft preferred alignment, but this is open for discussion. • • Cheryl Auger noted that the preferred alternative ignores the Town of Erie. • US 36 Rail is now called the NW Quadrant instead of US 36. • Look at CR 16 as an east-west alignment alternative. • On east side of 1-25, Frederick is willing to work with study and rail. • Gene Putman - Station at SH 52 with feeder bus • Jennifer Merer provided a station review. • The team was asked to check employment projections at I-25/SH 52, Dacono and Erie. From the preliminary estimates, the initial estimates indicated that there would be more ridership from the tri-town area than Erie. • Review land use in Erie vs Frederick, Dacono, Firestone. • One participant stated that the railroad has money set aside for rebuilding bridge across 1-25. This would only be done if railroad used the line for freight rail again, and the amount is relatively small. • Travel time for those already on the train more important than serving Erie or the tri-town area, according to the Purpose and Need for the project. • 1-25 alignment for commuter rail previously screened out • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration •Colorado Department of Transportation h103225105. TAC12004(fir,,200612006 TAC10713061TAC 071306 MM doc Page E-317 Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 ; Technical advisory Committee EIS July 13, 2006 • 2 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. • All of these plans ignore the town of Erie: o Would have to go due south through open space o Served by US 36 corridor o Option B had Erie —these are negatively impacting the town • Cost differences between packages-rail seems so much more expensive, it might not make sense: o Both in $1.5B o B has more highway improvement o Rail transit- considered service only to Longmont, expanding south added additional cost but needed to be discussed • Terminology-US 36 rail is now the NW quadrant o Need to start calling it that— includes diagonal • How does 1-25 crossing work? o Bridge or tunnel —could be bridge but not certain o Not engineered yet as we need input today • Did you look at alignment on CR16? Frederick could end up with undeveloped land on the east. o Choose 14 ''A to come into Dent line below the trails • • Be aware that there are only two property owners between CR 16 and SH 52 who could be interested in rail through there. • When looking at Erie, consider station location • Can understand Erie, Frederick, Firestone— put station at SH 52 to allow N/S buses plus Boulder branch. The station needs bus service. • A station at 52 makes sense to Erie. A bus can get people there. It cannot support Dacono and will not serve Erie. • Properties on the east of CR7 —those land owners are commercial and cooperative. There was rail on 7 west side —embankment is still there • • Why did B come out? o Serving population centers o Knew would be outside Erie but would get to downtown Dacono • Activity center—Erie, Frederick, Dacono have major employment centers planned along 1-25 — putting stations away from those high-density locations. • Criteria was used along entire corridor? • Did we do long range ridership analysis? o Looking at 2030 • • How far do people drive to a station? Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration - Colorado Department of Transportation J:103215105.TAC11004 fhn4 100 61200 6 TAC10713061TAC 071306 MM.doc Page E-318 rtriMeeting Minutes NORTH Ir25 z. *'H Technical advisory Committee EIS July 13, 2006 3 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. o Average is 8 miles o Range is 4 — 15 miles • F/F/D not part of RTD, but Erie and Longmont are. They can get Park-N-Ride, etc. They are in discussion now. • Is the plan to turn this over to RTD? o That has not been decided. o Document may suggest how to handle. • North area could have transit district that has an operating agreement with RTD— funding is the question. • Did you look at time?This alternative looks out of direction. o Not yet looked at route miles. This is a little longer. (S is1.7 miles longer than V) • Makes sense to come down CR 7 with a station at SH 52 then southeast with bus service along SH 52. o What is ridership S vs N? o More ridership at tri-towns than Erie—will double check • Did we preclude going to Greeley? Using Dent line has possible future connection to Greeley. • o Don't have to decide that now—won't preclude but won't be compelling • Area along 52 west of 1-25 will be huge population centers. Transit to serve residential o That area will be lower density. Looking at tri-town centers which is where density will be. • Crossing Boulder line and 1-25 — is there money there? o Yes UP has CDOT money to put bridge back o Would this project have access to that money? • Pop. Density issue— no matter how dense it is —not all that dense considering pop. to north • lengthening trip to pick up 200 -300 people • Date for breaking ground— how many trains a day? o Don't have a date now o Looking at 30 min. park, hourly, mid-day, Into evening but not overnight • MIS had interest in rail along 1-25 for marketing —what constraints are there in puffing this on 1-25? o Increase cost and right-of-way impacts to commercial properties along 1-25 already affected by current 1-25 projects. o Could preclude other transportation options • Remind us of next steps. • How will we make connection in Longmont? Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration Colorado Department of Transportation J.403225105.TAC1200I(Fru 200617006 TAC10713061TAC 071306 MM.doc Page E-319 Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25S Y , , x y:` Technical Advisory Committee EIS .: ...t_,_ • Page 1 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. MEETING DATE - September 14, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. Introductions 2. Discussion • The discussion was based on a power point presentation handed out to the group. The details are included in the presentation and the general topics are described below. • Kim Podobnik provided information about why we are here. Carla Perez said we are here because money matters. • Dave Martinez asked if the EIS would include both funded and unfunded projects. • • Tom Anzia reviewed the cost estimates for each component of the packages. • Kathleen Bracke asked if we had considered including revenue from fare box and tolling. Kathleen B. also asked about inclusion of station cost. o We have not yet taken into consideration revenue from fare box or tolling. The BRT and Commuter Rail station costs are included in the package cost estimates. • Debra Baskett asked who would operate a transit system in northern Colorado. o A regional transit operator is not currently in place and will have to be identified. • Henry Stopplecamp asked if the costs include a maintenance facility. o Yes, the cost of a bus and or rail maintenance facility is included. • Kathleen B. asked if the North Metro to Longmont rail connection is included in FasTracks. o No, this connection was not part of the FasTracks rail improvements. • Federal Highway Administration-Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 091406 MM.doc Page E-320 NORTH I--25 =-tw r • Meeting Minutes Technical Advisory Committee EIS Page 2 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. ■ Heather Copp presented information regarding CDOT's revenue estimates. o State gas tax— 2nd year in a row that it declined. That is the first time in history. o Using oil reserves and therefore, not collecting tax that was state side. o Federal gas tax has previously increased approximately 3% annually. However, the federal government is spending more than it is taking in. They have been spending down the trust fund. o SB1 transfer assumed for projections. • Carla P. described the difference between what CDOT's revenue forecasts estimate for the area and the estimated cost to build Package A or Package B. The difference is referred to as the Gap. Carla also described case studies of other projects that required funding and what methods they used to obtain it. ■ Julie Morrison described the DEIS process and the associated funding milestones that will need to occur in conjunction with the DEIS process. Preferred Alternative would be identified in the FEIS; perhaps in 2008. • ■ Steve Rudy, DRCOG, discussed the ad hoc committee on transportation funding. They are to identify a number of reasonable funding options. Much focus will be on sources that increase with inflation. o Bob G. - Asked Steve O. when will we see a list of concepts? Steve R. doesn't know. It is likely to be the early part of next year. • Cliff Davidson, North Front Range MPO, reported on the recent transportation summit held by the MPO. Participants were asked to spend 1.3 billion dollars on transportation improvements. The 1.3 billion dollars was a result of approximately what an RTA in the area might be able to generate with a 1-cent sales tax. NFR MPO is handing the RTA effort off to a coalition of citizens to move forward. o Bob Garcia asked Cliff what 6 tables at the summit spent money on, if not 1-25. • Debra B. asked if there was anything new on the legislative front. o Carla P. said she has heard about discussion about new mechanisms. Heather C. said there has been some discussion about forming a task force. • Gene P. stated that the citizens have failed by not upping gas taxes or maintaining our infrastructure. We need to start talking about it more. This is a state-wide issue. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 091406 MM.doc Page E-321 NORTH 1-25 Meeting Minutes EIS Technical Advisory Committee • Page 3 of 3 information. cooperation. transportation. • Heather C. state that it will take multiple sources to come up with enough money to address the states deficit. • Kathleen B. stated that local initiatives have been most successful with specific projects identified. How do we expect to get money without a specific project. 3. Public Comment • Dave White stated that it is the public assumption that this project will come from CDOT and FHWA. 4. Wrap-Up ■ We are here as a resource as the communities continue this discussion. Next Scheduled TAC Meeting: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:30 PM -3:30 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 091406 MM.doc Page E-322 \ ` . . . . . . A• « ! % l rN1 1-1 . § m ) - \ k ) t Qj ! . . t # . a & VI 2 . / / ( E E / / \ ; 8 k 8 \ ® C \ E \ \ & \ 6 E § E _ ! 115 c a / \ § .5 { Cl) O ) ( / % \ U ._ 2 ) ) n ) / \ O \ ) f m { t / \ / / ) ! t = ° } \ R. \ — © > I ) ] a § = , / ) 2 a G \ \ ) ) \ ) / .. ) ) f ) t | ± ) / ! q § 0 9 Ill ; o i fa \ / L. \ TO F01. k E I f R $ co g } / / } : \ ® { / . ) j 2 t s a G a - - _c § k E ) / \ } ? W. ® \ ` EP ; co I \ cc E ® ~ ® ` t 0 3. � al 6 / � ° { / ) » S , ,ii, B < k / / » ] / S 0 e o o \GA L ( E 0 J 0 it 0 0 / a / U / �\ k. ! ; �s « ) ) k ( / J E c 2 5 ) _as : p * ( § � ] — « e < N o no ) ® ) z c ? e \ § k ° � kO 7 G k § \ { mm wm\ \ ® / • ) k § % / ) ) ) 3 G * 3 j \ } { / / / / \ Page E-323 y C , I , , , Et It y . ` } § V-1 in w ; CO o \ § a E g / t 7 . j . Q / CO . 0 ` ( 6 3 \ / .. ! Li' g E E 0 , @ 0 E § ! & | ) ) E 2 > q q ;8 R k { E _ 0. Q § q ) { \ \ ( k a \ 0 o { q \ \ { \ . ) B .5 § t } ; 2 ;6, ) k « E ) f . » r ® ) f / ^ sti E a § \ { 23- ) =c - \ / Eli a 2 _ _ ) E 0 / \ ) } / / ) \ E \ / ) ) g t q -a / C \ % •# "a- Q. \ \ \ ) ] 0N a.72 / e k 9. « - - 0 \ \ \ .0) \ . O w 2 { 2 - - » f k p ) / § ) CO { f CD c / ) \ cC r / o o e t [ e t 2 t 0 } ( } \ w \ \ \ / } } \ } } / \ \ \ \ j § ( r \ >- =o j Li n G ea $> •• � � \ 3 E - f § / - _ _ _ J ® ) § { = = E [ § \ _§ k ) ) ; \ \ / k § . E ) IL _ - ) 2 F- a E C u \ e : \ § / i ) 2 / •{ / ) ] } ) 2 / 2 / ) j / \ \ \ / ] Page E-324 . r , - 4\ ! ill \ In E j q % a ; , / ) % j 2 2 E ! - -a ) ) & _ - \ t ko \ 4 6 2 ( \ E \ \ \ ® - ` \ ! { ` 5 2 \ k � { ! \ a § \ 2 . \ E / 7 c \ ! \ a { / \ \ \ \ § 2 . E a 2 t 01 + ) 3 0P M o . \ \}d , / \ ) ° ci �� k ! ©a ! \ A3 s ) e ] o ....-- a ) ( ) : t o e i k m / \ § J + E ,. ± § & . / k ® ..... / k ) , / Z \� $ ) Q .. ) { , \ ) w- ; ; _ 4- 2 \ r < ) § ® ® § 2 ( E ® } © 2' R � / /fe R » - i a ( ±# % * 3 i o o ] o Z 0 oow o 0 } e e F- O D I e ] } al ( ! \ 00 , 0 000Qc a) 0.) ; 0 \ [ 73 E } : N ` { ) a ` : E E / > / q 2 E 2 § • a • ! § a > - ) 0 § j , f ) j \ a) / L. ) \ Z ° tea ■ e & ± § \ 2 ( [ 2 ! \ { ! \ ± ( Arne- « 0- a ] b k A i a « ] a ] ) \ A 2 3 a Page E-325 ±/ ; . , «-- T----1 : r r — I - I — y . ` $ dm...4 t/ �� 8 • a q frii miii )\ § ; E k / % , \ § EF e \ 2 a 2 ( $ a / r E. § m w : @ / } ! § - § / O \ _ ar \ \ \ / a / a j N \ $ t 0 j 2 ) / e \ % _ > q ® \ \ \ / § \ c jr) c { f § ( \ ) a E I \ ( / _ 7 ( ( \ 2 a G [ K ) \ ) \ ) j 0 [ f i | - ± ) c-, 5 ! 0 \ - ) � \ \ j \ I \ \ \ m » - cp 2 a « . ) ° C \ § g E § [ { § § ) ® _ § ) ) 2 \ 3 ) 2 ) 4- 2 a ) ) Eel ( \ e - ° 4- ® ( ..- too « 8 c . R ) \ § ® ) ® § » ` oe § H o 0 R Z I— e 0 f G a IL Ge o - k i 4 ; / & % ( § \ I S 0 §Ca § a. 0 > 4o « - N k ; / 3 e ) ] c e co f ! E » a 2 e | ) B ) } co : k § § k \ @ . f ® � 2 { { k } O3 k k / \ ® @ ■ e e "C -8 $ @ , \ s 3 - ` . / a r C.0 O. 3 / 2 3 a J a -9 ) \ f 3 ) / \ \ Page E-326 \0 0 \ • \ \ ) $ 0, G 1 d e / k 0 \ s / : \ 2 , . % \ / \ & a , cn ( R ) ) { Q a > _ ) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ § \ ) \ / \ / \ ] / 2 ) / ) @ % # \ ) 7 J - ° k ` ° \ ( F 7 k \ \ k z k > E \ - \ & _ — 2 a e _ ! \ ) . : Q.+ 7 0 E R .. o G / Q co co Q # / I / \ 2 k . k "j Cfl CC C \ z & 2 A � k ! ! 41 • ) f/ a » 7 » { •:,.. o § { \ » s ) . \ o cu ) } / \ \ / ] ' cC \ � c § \ j •} - 2 ) \ \ § \ ) 0 \ } - 0 3 o 0 H o ] \ G o e w \ a a o } j1(:);° \ \ ) ( k G k 7 00 Q. ! }kk a CD t" / 8 e I - 8 ` _ ` ) aco a J § j § / E e j C E / 2 , t ) / < 2wa- ; 2 J © q \ z , ` / < 2 ® m » ) # 0 � a � ! C : e : ( z E 2 $ -- g & 2 / $ 22 i g / \ \ / j \ ) ) § 3 » J J 16 CO [ • Page E-3 r § I . . , , , , , If,ge > & � . � \ \In G ° / / ; ® / ; ) r E { Pm!2 g � � � � � � ` t m ) \ \ \ \ \ © ° E j . 0 CO \ \ \ Ls c \ \ • \ } \ \ \ / \ \ \ e E r - a = I / § k / { { / { § / E ) \ { } % ] § 3 \ _ 4 3 2 2 . O a -) t I ) 6 • \ - 9 P. / t § : a 15w j f) 2 a f a E ) M- t 0 » ) G f , f » \ / f ) § ) § a \ ) ! k ) c ) 9: \ j 3 J » 2 $ 6 0C §• / / ! � § @ § , [ » t Cl) # t § ] § % r # } » c ± R 2 * § \ \ ~ 5 * ° \ 03 z « a J 0 e o H H § R f H 0 H \ $ 1 § / 2 im ® 2 G \ \ Ra. o , SSA C. { k - \ A E , e E § ( k ) � % k / CD / \ \ Cr (DC oO. R / 2 f * e ( ® : 2 § ) { ` f ) \ / AQma ] 0 CO \ ] { \ « § S / \ j 0 / \ & Page E-328 u I i • ' T- F I V! —f i -1, a. 4 O. o • ' --J t N 4 '` .tD "n ‘.3: Q,to C ) N W H ? J S 0 m Q a xH L. a C a V U �`3, Q et Z I b c .- r 4 E E 6 r° illOV ° (a f i ot. al c o ) 0 Tr Uj O • •U 2 N @ •J 't I ) TI- y/ ra Q. fil - .O 0 CD C S Sr II �n a 3 m 3 d .c Y .. of 8 tr 0 1 2 ` o E 4 O Y O s N U N N 3 d O N 4. 5 �1- •J % 2 CoQ- = m C - Ci r IV s U N dA V E 0 it- COW i - � � a z F 2 2 4: O c c � 4 .g viz L E :Y V Q p w p C = t Q T'O e- d ~ `� o o @ o Chl —z � • 1-- -r A a H 0 H 0 0 % U 3 h .-i,_ ' \\ 2 C > U 0 \ \ \'\NI \ 91\>) s O Kph N yNoai 0 3 > J -C •'2 — U J. E w h 2 t o 8 d °! S $ • wwT. PI E 0 s m coy 0 p . c- m ,_ v7a zi 2 z v z� G Page E-329 I o :.ate,>59 ';�, r 'cN r,' K Yyu. N o o • t aw^v; a T;: • F-�1 W ik, .7 m C b• • . ;sin 6 o arf • z _ l` C 6 3 4Yi` N _ W a o '';r`n • c . E - ' n SP- RS 6o ra>,. @ a , a. L2 C 'oc v A,iv e Is Ia (3 r r D .$ o Vc:• r g Nla r 111 a I . L.. F` '.. v ; `a _ d,`w, g vz3J el b c ie▪ .yam" m` m c c e Q 's1Yt o o e Y V V q.e'a , if J J ¢ , n TJ u w fi�- ' Ql.ht g s o F 3; U O , K o n U F' ip"3q'- O oN 0 co 4 Q c" n O M.4N< Q w O 0 rr'`-.F. N :E- U m J Z pia.. i - XI-- es VI a o rn ,. m • • vOraia u 'm o • Page E-330 Meeting Minutes NOR1H 125 t g 3 Technical Advisory Committee EIS • October 12, 2006 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 1 MEETING DATE - October 12, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. General Discussion • Gene Putman with Thornton suggested that we provide access to the managed lanes to and from the south near 112th Avenue. a Gene also suggested that we provide a median bus station at 106th Avenue. If not at 106th, 120th would be good too. • Dave D. and Holly suggested looking at a center median at 85th Avenue where the existing station is located and the slip ramps are difficult to replace. • Gene encouraged us to provide pedestrian underpasses instead of overpasses wherever possible. • Debra Grey and other representatives from Northglenn told us that they have a lot of water quality data for Big Dry Creek if we need it. • • Dave Klockeman reviewed the Crossroads station and agreed that the access road under 1-25 would not parallel the railroad but instead cross perpendicular to 1-25. • Holly reviewed the preliminary 2030 projections at Crossroads with Dave K. He agreed that it . seemed reasonable that they could reach the 30K range by 2030. • The team agreed to try to post the displays to the project web site. • Holly promised to send a packet of information to Dick Leffler with Frederick. • Kathleen Bracke expressed concerns about the proposed expansion site for the Harmony Transfer Center at Harmony Rd/1-25. Paul Brown responded that many of the adjacent areas have been identified as 4(f). Kathleen replied that there was a transportation set-aside negotiated with CDOT within the open space for the expansion. Dave Martinez agreed to research the set-aside. • Bill Andrews with Greeley asked for a copy of the Parallel Arterial Exhibits. (I sent electronic copies to him on 10/13/2006). • Kathleen Bracke(Fort Collins) and Dave White(developer)were happy with the modification in 1-25 horizontal alignment at Prospect, which allows the frontage road in the SE quadrant to remain adjacent to 1-25. Next TAC Meeting: Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:30 PM-3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation J:\03225\05.TAC\2004 thru 2006\2006 TAC1101206\TAC 101206 MM.doc Page E-331 i • ti E In 4 F W ? y N > i N E ai m o 0 a f o p• O O cr I O O U N o O U Z t Q p E w; o 0 -o i > o o E -pp o -o Q E m . p >- U o (c • N L N 5, i ELa 0�i I a,i c > c _ o $. E d O a� S O U U C WE • d o pv E _ ofy@ ") a-, ca sE 'c� @ -Q .I 0 a> o . > �p1 raah1 ,'3 jtjjj . ° w@ � c a O -o _ Y-fa a -owY d = ra I `\ 4 4 all'• S cr. c co�p �` U c E C V W C Q. E OC U C W o p s .@ o coo) m c S a c o o c C° m W CO W C R R • a s z a z F- i= i` 5 o CEO a cn of a• °' m Olc = N o 7 cl FZ 4- L T C D7 C Q N U 'Cyy .42 o .5 c m o N pi R i. m o 2 = U C! p p W CL W u� m m 2 Q E o O E. Cr- = -JO 'c I o c m W � 2 0 0 �' aNi t 0 c °o Q p 3 U b L. -c a O 1- U IL O U UUm` � O F - it' U U 0 ti in a _ Ely x I a . _ O Izt a p re U 2 N O o d Ucoo > c i iyi o 3E m Y J r p ep 'o �C, N N y y O N U m p U W W Z Q Q N Co m co m N Y U L m E E U C rL en vi- c a> Q m m Q m ooi ° m m y m m` m m E.I . m � 4? � A E a =_ E cm m > a Z E c > > F- O to a Fp- FY Fo- C ai = C 0 CO 0 cYa Y d = 5 Page E-332 z ) T . r\ \ � &) I m ! E ] , co ° 8 : o E « t E ` Zii \ j m k [ . ! } \ j o § § / o 2 § { ' E { s ` E f 2 { 4 I / / k z / \ ) { \ / ( \ / / { # _ © k 515 \ ) } \ ) « [ a k & k ) ( f ° M ) s \ k } { \ \ J W \ \ k R = z ` - \ a ) o / ) o E f 3 \ 0 o m / m E E A $ { a c C. og ) _ � o o ° \ \ \ _ \ ! ( ( 7 ) z z w .C1J } b \ ,_ 5 \ ) ; 0 2 R f 4 [ / o p { \ § ) _ & / — \ o 0 ! 15 E ) f § / { \ / f ) k / ( o \ R § § y r 0 / 2 k - O ( § . 0 0 0 e cc z i— 0 w $ 0 0 a e 7 0 A e / 7 } j U § it-sr 15 ) G k § � 2 CO @ cs oN9 ; ` ,ow § L. ` ` \ ) 5 § « . e9 z E a ( 2 - 3 C > t ( _ - — re : S. k ) ( k � © } \ k / § § 3 \ ) — \ / | , ■ 022 0 \ 0 0 ] \ 0 } ) / ) \ k ) 2 \ 2 \ 1 Page E-333 \ 0 E / ce 2 } / to / / / , 2 , 7 + E 5 E E \ E [ ) $ . ) E { 2 ; ; = k ) ) ) : { \ \ \ r ai \ j ° \ / \ 0 k ° § ! 2 s / CO 03 0 E N °C0 @ k , - \ / } ) / a \ a 4 CO\ E EE 4-4 C ( 2 I a \ a it : 2 & / -44 ) k e. 6 ) } j - \ ) k Q. ] m § ® ` $ § § a } a_ ) J /} R \ \ -41 \ 5 ) - " . _7 k f § / ° \ & CO c [ / / t § ) I « • E e ® I y ; 2 R , k ) 3 ) § \ / ) j -aI = $ \ ® - E r § g • t p \ § § § c % ® } } § \ \ /\ 3 « \ e em S A ) \ c } / CO \ an § § m k o q \ t /co 2 § Ga & \ ed \/ k 1-0 ) % - - k § ` k N & c m \ ) E ` ) . 0I- \ \ - O co / O / 2 \ \ \ { / \ i ID F � G - © \ / 2 R ] j 0 k k if } ) E / ) { \ / Page E-334 I "_\ `� \ ;L.1 � iii co , / / L. ` \ E r ; . - \ E ( r ) t E / E ` % e _ - k k } - ` - ® CI 2 y 4 \ \ k k / \ \ t ® a E ` & S ( - / \ & A \ $ E ) I c - ' i k \ 0 � § t \ - • ` i s E « k § f / 2 C O f ) \ E ) z \ { P. s. I. c ] ) ) 0 Q ) _ \ cn k co f o / A @ ! ) 2 ) \ ® -o 2 \ $ { ra IR / O \ O -al CD \/ •\ \ o { / } m O a. , ; /j \ C / \ \_/j } \ k \ \ +:0' \ \ \ D \ ] L. L 14 2 6 c G k k � k co _ | « O8A � � � � k — ( C ) m : k ! ICI) \ 0w -' k f ) { - 2 0 - « $ ] ] / & L. 2 k § �. XO in o « 2 ) 2 / m 2 2 w - $ I B . e ) . \ ( g ! � f « @ ' « 7 - ) - _ ) ro - 03a 0 / o ] « R 2 # 3 m < § § ) 2 \ ) / gePa E-335 5 ® 1 E ` G , ., j q m (, E E e ) 13 D 0 w 3 44 / R § ; a D. § O a § k ) / / / \ , \ / / ) ) La o 111 ! ® a ® §e t ] UH ! UttJ I / $ ' \ \ \ 7 ( c \ / ) ( § 2 me) B k _ 0o. E w 2 \ / 0 0 E \ {- a % # = j k o fn - # § ] Ell .0 < 0 ] 3 j \ _ A It ! \ a. ® - C ` = 0 » ) \ j ink \ § \ ) 6 ) \ « / /) ( \ ) I— al ) \ \ k § a 0 7 GA 0 -, 000 0 O e 0 I R a. 4 { \ § / B ® 42 ....) X o m \ CO2 \ ! « § SA ; - \ \/ 0 ® ® / [ > - E -5 2 - ` , _ { a 2 t § / / / - \ n \ { \ \ ) \ f ) / 2 ) \ \ , won % Cn a. 0 ) / / ) ) \ \ \ k \ 0 k } 2 0 } Page E-336 - ! \- •- . ; m 2 ` 0 ) E Z \ \ \ tn \ § k \ \ ) \ f § \ { q » q R ! o § !1iIIt1 43 ) fj3iI .! j1 c\ TD \ ) _ 0 \ o \ k \ 2 ) ) 0 k \ $ CO ) ) ) { \ IF 2 f \ J co ) k \ ) a« a f }k• \ ( \ ( z e ( - ® \ 9 « tm , & f / ) / \ \ , { $ § § § { a \ w - 2 - ! k � 45 S / IL ° & \ / \ 4 > { \ ) _ ` _ | f \ } j j / § \ \/k ( § ) « / ) / # a ]� / j ( m k 3 \ \ O0 > ` -t `2 in -- k }% \ k ; / / k 2 ( k \ .c ) k \ # \ eo « t 2 t k { » 2 » / 2 a g c y / « { � , § ) ( / G z @ 7 / \ _ ! « A ! [ ] \ C -92 g a ! f 2 6 f $ | 2 ! � G2k / \ / k \ § 3 2 « / 6 a \ { \ 7 3 / ! Page E-337 \ 0 / q 4 d Pei E \ k { \ \ O o li g Z . / \ Cf , •. O / E E ] & @ $ b o $ u a \ *6 ] a .\ ) \ 15 a \ 10§ / \ { E 2 m { ) / / \ f ° © 2 2 - k ) G E -0 * - { k ) § / S ) : w 7 } 7 ) 7 2 - 6 % ± ± 0 « , n \ 2 § @ k ; } / — E/ § Ii \ ) \ \g / m ±J z a Z \ E Et.- -r3 E CO 0 0 § _ ® ® 7 I a o \ \ � ! \ \ \ \ \ c 7 \ 0 (0 * “� 17 > a § § § - § 0 O VG it e a e ZD J e O e e e e OO \ 10 ) C ( k a. OO O § § 2 \ 2 | \ }k2 B \ § E e k § \§ aw \ o, ) co » k { \ i . \ pop. F k \ ( j ( / 42 c \ { \ ) t k A 4Q U) M. « 2 ) \ ] a 0 \ * - 2 § 0 2 a Page E-338 / If) (/) Wig/ rsi ,-1 ± q W -.7,--t.,34," . ; eA ® 13 2 . / ] '�« ■ S Q \ 2 - \ E ; \ / k \ \ \ \ i , «- ' , \ \ F\ ) 2. ) \ \ \ , . , } I \ 7. § - y - m \ _ k \ 4 . \ k / tt-§ a z P \ } G \ e C « [ t 2 "t.) . o % © \ o = 2k � _/ ) ` % G2 1 ! § // Q ( \ ■ a- ` ° z . 1 a • : ? sC ) � z \ $ L- a ! § � a = 2 ; ! rurwm % \ ) 3 Page E-339 Meeting Minutes NORTH I-25 Technical Advisory Committee EIS ' �, • November 9, 2006 information. cooperation. transportation. 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 1 of 2 MEETING DATE - November 9, 2006 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig — Holly Buck SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. OVERVIEW OF PACKAGES • Holly provided a brief summary of the two packages and the No Action alternative that we are currently evaluating in the DEIS. 1. Vicky McLane asked if there would be a connection from Longmont to Boulder to Denver in Package A. Passengers traveling from northem Colorado to Boulder would transfer in Longmont. They could continue through Boulder to Denver. 2. Vicky asked if the connection between Longmont and North Metro would be a different phase. Phasing will be addressed in the FEIS. B. OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PACKAGE RESULTS • Chris Primus and Holly Buck explained preliminary results illustrated in handouts. Handouts included interchange volume diagrams, "stick" diagrams, highway volume projections, transit • ridership graphics and other handouts. These diagrams include existing, no action and package a daily volumes. Package B is still under analysis with Wilbur Smith. • Travel time from SH 14 to E470 at peak time for No Action is 58 minutes, Package A is 45 minutes; 25% better. Today the peak period travel time is about 40 to 45 minutes. Package B numbers will be between No Action and Package A. • Bill Andrews asked if there was any information on impacts to local arterials with No Action alternative or either of the build alternatives. We have not pulled that information but we will as part of our evaluation if you are interested. • The project is attempting to achieve LOS D or better along the corridor. With No Action, LOS E or F is in all urbanized areas. Near SH 52, LOS includes the planned widening. With Package A, travel time improves and LOS-D or better is achieved along the corridor. • Dave Klockeman asked if the team would be evaluating level of service at the interchanges, and ramp junctions. Yes, we have started that process and will share results when they are complete. • Bob Garcia reminded the group that the connection between Longmont and North Metro was not part of the initial recommendation by the team. It was added back in as a result of public input. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-340 I 2S " 'NORTH Meeting Minutes • Technical Advisory Committee EIS NON/ember 9, 2006 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 2 of 2 C. EVALUATION OF DEIS PACKAGES • H. Buck provided a brief explanation of evaluation measures used to compared packages and identify package impacts. We welcome ideas on how you would like to see the results summarized. There is a lot of data and if you have something you would specifically like to see please let us know. Otherwise, measures will be similar to those used in previous rounds of screening. • It was suggested that when comparing travel time we have a similar origin and destination (say Harmony Road) even when two different modes are and alignments are being compared. • Larimer County requested that we provide travel times segment by segment. • During our Level 3 evaluation, some committee members suggested that a portion of the managed lane highway cost should be associated with the BRT. When we discussed this with FTA to determine if there was a standard, they said that there is not but suggested using a breakdown of vehicle miles of travel. Vicky M. suggested possibly using the axels or pavement impacts associated with a larger vehicle for the cost breakdown. D. Operating and Maintenance Facility Sites • Steve Silkworth gave a presentation on the rail and bus operating and maintenance facility • sites being considered in the DEIS. • K. Bracke expressed concerned about showing maintenance and operations facility site maps at public meetings, unless property owners have been contacted. The team will look into who has been contacted and remove this information from public materials until we are sure property owners have been properly notified. E. LONGMONT TO NORTH METRO CONNECTION UPDATE • Paul Brown provided the group an update on the evaluation and selection of alignment V to connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro line. Since our last meeting with the TAC we have met with the tri-towns and Erie two times, we have collected additional data as requested by those communities and have identified alignment V as providing the best travel time and having the least impact to the human and natural environment. This is the alignment that will be carried forward for further evaluation in the DEIS. F. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPDATE • Jessica Woolery provided an update of upcoming public outreach activities including highway small groups, south area public meetings and environmental justice meetings. NEXT TAC MEETING: THURSDAY,JANUARY 11,2006 1:30 PM-3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-341 egrps, Ili . In LT) ci \ ° co ` E ) •` \ CO / / / i { ) o E § ( cu th } { \ \ \ \ \ / id } \ \ ) a \ E »7-3 ) / g Q \ -0. 8 E 45= ( \ f ; ! ca c { \ , 0 } @ 0 0 / Tice) 2 r ° $ g m. 3 ^ \ @ ® / E k ` ° \ ] \ a \ ( ) & a a § / ) ) ) \ A & 'a2 f ; triL W / \ •/ / ) ' b ] 2 Q § - \ eat 0.(1) / § } ® E / % a / ± o. @ ! • $ ! 2 / w 2 . + ) co f \ ; • w = ( , t , } - k / { ± f 3 ) > m m m [ / \ k ■ { 0 E CD / . 7 j ° / to ) e k m 3 = ) F ® 2 % e % = E / ® ® ) f « ® i 0 / \ U. / 0 /\/ [ § ) } \ \ } } \ k Et! ) ts.c't V ( § k G § § 2 / G O C Z. CO ) ) «3 \ B k ` § tn 03` § \ j J 2 \ f ) { A as) \ ) # ) \ § \ o / . ! § \ « \ # ) E < ) L / E * I / 2 CO 6 6 m i o ® ■ . E 2 a E c % _ = e p z a a ! / z Q � � a ) \ / 3 § I D o G 3 « \ ) z f i Page E-342 \ \ 0 \ rl q \ co / ) o \ E E / § • E / o v ; ) ® \ o k E _ E ® , E 2 k RI o e { \ g . j E 8 ai ) Q % % § ) / ) { ( } ; 8 * ( \ & \ - ^ } « ^ a r Cu! u, $ \ § y » e } \ \ ) / k \ § - j } : § g \ E ( E a § « k \ { c j \ k © t j \ a ) a \ ) ) E f § \ 0 ) \ \ ,.,_CO \ E j \ ± ) co ] = g _ > / k \ o ) _ _ c O - \ 2 ) / \ ) / — } 0 J CO - o \ ` 0 Si 42 0 ° a) t E § 4C-15 8 o n \ \ \ \ E § } } \ R 2 § } « - ) { k \ / ) } \ b c d e z e 0 E / o 0 a e u_ o a H # ! 2 k ` Ill b . % o• ( \ sue \ ! ; §8A 2 ! # @ / 3 a : � ] c # § - = : § w � a J co o E a ' ) ) q * § \ a = % ) 0 z § E � ® o a o # 1 \ ` 3 3 3 E — _ — % / ; : 3R ( ( 9 / 2 E \ / ) \ .0 % 0 j \ \ § ! mzQm � a « 6 3 ] 0 3 / « I « < < 0 a / I \ ! Page E-343 i It e 0 q m ! I I % e S o w § . _ \ R 8 ) ` iji / ) E g 0 E \ r o \ -o \ ( \ & 75- a) \ } / § a • / c \ / \ , O \ Ca Is E \ / 3 } \ ES 0 = t, \ k• -c lE c \ / k k ] k { R ) oE § $ k 2 I { { - \ / ) ) / \ -, / , \ / ) Co \ / ) / C f . _ \ } 6 -1-0 / / \ } \ ) ii 13 4 ] _ /c TD \/ < k @ ` \ ' H 0 _ f ] * e ) \ 43 \ § ) & E. c § - f Li f ( ( j / 45 © / k Cu - kCt m a / ) \ 2 z j ° 2 s @ A ) C E e y ® E * ® { ? e § § ] 4.=. 4-- AN 5 H ) \ k / /_\ f z 0 /\/ O o k \ H H # ) 6, } ( . , e 3 k § s � k , ` � G # & ,OG 0ca -1 CCI \ c g \ - \ 6 } ) / \ / ( j \ \ 2 § / $ a ~ { G o f l a k ID f > _ Rke i = e - co ! § « ez rCO0 2 4 } / § 7 ) < / ± f « G t / ) \ ge E-344 / + 1 . e . \ (w» %Z\ , U- q l 44 q I d § / , a 1 ) E O 7M a5 Z 2 E 6 E E — } ) ) % ° ( \ 7 2 : § a al { } \ \ / \ \ \ \ - } k m ! 13 ] / / / { ( c { E - t. I E � # \ 0 0 \ { > E ) z \ \ I tel- o 41 ' 3.0 P. / E co • : ) I ] / I co \ / @ ® # ) : / 8 = ., ) ^_ } ( a / ) _ ) 6 - IL : / z j ) ) ' CO ( o c / f e § �k 0 0 0 46>I // k k ( « 92 E ) \ k / { \ Ja / 2 w § o o85 e o 0 ) z f e e o \ / $ ) ( \ �� ) k 00ak \\\\ k } § ` ® ( ° § - m # fsec # ; $ - { f « I ac ( ; ads _ { \ 2 ) t k ] ] \ $ i >,43 / R , } k \ ) \ { j } / ) ) ) 2 / a \ o \ ) o ] ) ) o \ } -Cr) \ PC ie z \ w \ Page E-345 ail ;l'etlteff Et reatLcre y ,tj ( . • c: q m l . / q ! .. 0 P4 k s ` ` & } ( E & O ) j D D Cr - W 3 [ 8 } ® ) $ \ E \ \ \ { \ \ � a 8 0 ° ` - ( © @ G � ` & k ) [ / \ # ( -5 J ) \ / \ J 9ii * E [ / ) ) E / \ \ \ \ = a a \ \ a ( \ / \ \ § f f \ E E \ / \ I I ) O. H — • Q ) f = } \ , j 0 C / ) ( \ / c ` \ k \ # / 8o CO ` t ) ) - ( / ) ° > � ^ coE \ 0 $ . ° / % 2 j } } ) @ o < \ \/ \ o ( S i R z t / k � E § & ? ir G § § ate \ D. '&3 , � � \ � co a _ \ > _ E q - , a 2 = - E E c = { § ; ! § / k \ / \ } \ o k ._ ) k ` • w3ak a) t f 7 . - @ > ! - # _ ] / 2 { k / zz » � 0 j o \ ) Z \ I- A \ f 0 ± ) 2 0 ! Page E-346 ® }rarP oil • < « k . ! q q r4 / d 7 » co ! / k { 0 E a / J ® ) \ / ) G ( a ) •f co ( § ] g § \ \ \ 5 ! ) \ § 2 \ k of -0 \ / j 7 m cu .c= ) a > , / k 2 2 « / 0 11 * 0 } a ) / o / \ $ ) ) ] ) \ \ k \ to 2 / 2- » y e J Q / ' 14. a / - /H 53 w x o / \ • 0)0. a� @ _ \ O / 2 e } y ) \ — f ez co 15 co 5) a \ > & k _ \ \ ; § § a / f Q - a @ - ] \ r \ o j } v � o 03 t \ o % 2 , M , Cr\ CO t = } / 2 k ) ( y » /\ ® ± ^ o a m m a = o eoo z & ± 7 / } } \ { \ I ( \ 0. \ % >- C.) ! ` ~ * § & t \ \ \\ ° E ok f ( k ) _ > COk ct ct § § /) $ 2 ) >, \ / \ \ \ \ / \ + « ) / 2 ® 2222 ! v , a > / E t , § ® • 2 k / mz � na co / < \ 0 3 c ) ) 0 > \ ) E } ) / ! Page E-347 graswi s o ticsf-1. .. . E � w s N n � C 0a D OU 11 a o ai E d 6 U J O ~ m o a o Y e k4- 1' Z m v o o 0 o E cc Lff C 3 Z a C o 0 0 "I o a o § o CS '� W 8 c8i 0 € ri a m -0 o •6 @ ti@ g co E O• _ D- c L m ® 'T Ul a a 0y w ar @ -O a 'o w o Q� 5 c H s �co a = o :c 6 s o N F` L' -o C� V o1 -jo -� c L Z • cl 'c i -7 0 v o Qy 0�� '4 J i a g) o d '� 1 4 J 'a COQ ,t5 c ti y ga , s .J C O 5 Q. -> w0. W a _`°I z Q- G a k: 'c a E a) it o c.) = ' t `o o c c a m EU c c r E s J -P in 6o c o 3 m o " a °� J \9 b R a O O ° N U O O Cr= ( a c Q 7, O c § 3te > -o t a C C 0 o O (3 1 '> t $ F- 2 0 o u. as cc F- F- F- Z o I-- 0 I— I— O Fes- U o a m N 13 S us iss W it 'es * Q J `Is O a U 0 qoco ) E 'QPM O CD N E a1 TA C ca 3 s teofC� W 0- 0 m o �' -0 o m e E 2 m -2 t. ('v 'g iwd2 co 70 co O m' H o > 0 a) c c o o ,2 a " F . U > o rn Z' rn ~ c aa) c 'c :c 3 3 ,m d s r t E . w o 70 I- z iM-' CO o. z m 0 --6 co0 IP 0 O0 c o E 0 Y m 0 p 4. 'h -a CC 5 z o z _ '1 1 s Page E-348 Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 L ._. Technical Advisory Committee EIS +`:-,�.�5:;_ ` • January 11, 2007 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 4 MEETING DATE - January 11, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO —Jessica Woolery SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. OVERVIEW OF PACKAGES A. Tom Anzia provided a brief summary of the two packages and the No Action alternative that we are currently evaluating in the DEIS. i. Request to have Alignment V from Longmont to FasTrack North Metro Line distinguished on the Package A map with a separate color and state it is a $.5 billion option that was added later. ii. Possibly add a foot note about the FasTrack line from Longmont to Boulder since many northern Coloradans may not be aware of FasTracks. 2. OVERVIEW OF EIS ANALYSIS TASKS(NOW TO JULY 2007) • A. Gina McAfee and Wendy Wallach with Carter-Burgess explained the 20-22 factors that will be analyzed in the DEIS. Handout material included information on each factor, what is analyzed under the factor, and which entities the project team will work with to mitigate impacts when it can't be avoided. Request for committee members to identify which factors they would like to be briefed on following the analysis. Factors that are likely to be of most concern to TAC members are: 1. Land Use - Analysis will be on how the different packages fit with existing land use and future plans. • Q:When the project team will work with local entities to discuss the factors? We could have a meeting and the planning departments would be encouraged to come. 2. Air Quality—We will be using a new model FHWA has developed to measure ozone impacts and other pollutants on an area wide basis. Will measure the vehicle miles of travel and speed, which can change emissions. Carbon Monoxide and PMio are hot spot issues. Will be looking at signalized interchanges to measure and it is likely to be a concern with the cities and counties. We can show what air quality will be like in your area. • Q:Will PM2.5 also be measured? It will be included in the FHWA model and we will include in text. 3. Noise and Vibration • Bob Garcia stated that from CDOT's perspective noise is an issue that is dealt with regularly and he feels the educational elements of noise are a • huge issue. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-349 Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 Technical Advisory Committee EIS January 11, 2007 • 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 2 of 4 • Q: Can you also discuss how noise from transit affects future land use development as a future agenda item? We can discuss that along with how far away houses should be and issues with quiet zones. 4. Visual 5. Transportation Impacts 6. Cumulative—This will look at how the impacts with each package will sum up and vary from the other packages' impacts along with what resources may be at a tipping point or breaking point right now. • Q: Is farm land one of those resources? Yes, it could be. • C: Ozone is a huge area of concern as a resource at a tipping point. Denver and the north front range (Greeley and Weld County) has already been put on alert. B. Other resources to be examined: 1. Social Impacts— includes a look at the changes in population and affects on community activity centers. 2. Environmental Justice (EJ) —Jessica Woolery and Kim Podobnik explained outreach tactics and comments received from the identified EJ areas where • outreach has been completed. EJ areas include: Fort Collins, Longmont, Loveland, Greeley, Gillcrest, and Brighton. A summary of all public comments including EJ comments will be presented at the next TAC meeting. • Q: Are they being asked to weigh what they feel is positive verses negative impacts in these communities? Everyone has a different value system so we don't ask them to weigh impacts under NEPA guidelines. We address impacts with their concerns. 3. Economic Impacts • Q: Do economic impacts include land owners? That varies depending on the information we have received from municipalities and from our parcel queries. • Are you reaching land owners that are different from current business owners you have identified?We have been working to do so by inviting all land and business owners to attend our interchange and transit station working groups. We have a database of all members; however there are different levels of involvement at various interchanges. 4. Right-of-Way 5. Water Resources and Water Quality • Q: What do you mean by fill? A direct fill impact would be placing a wall in the water resource. An indirect impact would be the sand or deicer running off into the water. • C: The Big Dry Creek area is already highly affected by sediment issues • currently changing the amount of flow in the creek as well as the amount of sediment in the creek in Weld County. We are hearing about it from farmers. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-350 Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 • Technical Advisory Committee EIS January 11, 2007 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 3 of 4 6. Wetlands— Quantified by acreage. • Q: Do wetlands trump other factors in regards to magnitude?Anything with a federal law trumps other factors. This includes historic properties, wetlands and air quality. 7. Floodplains 8. Vegetation/Noxious Weeds 9. Wildlife 10. Historic and Archaeological Properties • Q: How are properties identified as archaeological? We work with an Archaeologist and they walk around to look at the property. 11. Hazardous Materials -After identifying where there are hazardous material we look at a way to contain it during construction. 12. Parks and Recreation Sites • 13. Farmland - impacts are classified by acreage. 14. Energy 15. Public Safety and Security • C: Denver is one of 53 areas required to have an evacuation plan by Homeland Security. The Denver Regional Mass Evacuation plan is through the North Central Regional Emergency Management. 16. Construction 3. DOCUMENT PREPARATION A. Stan Elmquist provided a brief explanation of the basic chapter outline of the EIS and the final document review process. The final EIS will identify a preferred alternative and more impacts and we anticipate it will identify phasing as well as impacts of phasing. B. Q: Is one of the reviewing agencies CDOT Region 6? Region 6 will review at the same time as CDOT Headquarters.. That will be added to documentation of the review process. C. C: Would advise that the MPOs be the last line of the review process before going to public. We will schedule a future meeting with the NFRMP and DRCOG to discuss the impacts, so they are briefed before the document goes to the public. D. What is the timeline for the review?We will have an updated review timeline at the March meeting. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-351 Meeting Minutes iNORTHI-25 - Technical Advisory Committee EIS �4 January 11, 2007 • 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 4 of 4 4. FUTURE TAC BRIEFING AREAS OF INTEREST A. Members expressed interest in hearing impact information regarding air quality, noise and vibration, environmental justice, water quantity and quality, land use, and transportation impacts at a future meeting. NEXT TAC MEETING: THURSDAY, MARCH 8,2006 1:30 PM-3:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-352 r-,d W i j• j co a E a) O O a O O U 7 U "00 0 > d -ci 0E co E o W O > O O e N tF is.fr n O O E U N u a) c > C EO e -6 O U c0 8 00 t3 to n a 7 ° E w o 0 @j as s v ri o pE pU{ C@ m o o m 6 a .o > @ „ d U , 3 @ C d U Y .C v- C �' C o 2 -0 c c(11 C @ m CU c aC 0 g 0 o `r a a) V CO c 0 a) CO a) d L U 9 2 m a ' a U c _ 0 @ C N N > 0 - E Q a Y I a YO l0 a I- 0 en A -O o ' U Y .O :9 a 2 b G Q a° b a) p @ o W ta @ o o co % a a o al 0 O a co @ W N W In C 2 C C a. a z a. z H H F- C 1 as m co b co -5 y o 5 .Q Z, O >, b� c d Z. c U Qom; O ? C m = C o E o CO L. 2 . (3 0O o a W W w c O m 2 a' Q N p U' Olt. 2 J C ;c I O .G m W q_ e w he E c o n o L. o Foe F- c � `0 0 IP U F- U U. U U U m U H LL U U U ti n I atze W ° W an O a. ° r� aE.5 c ° o o > c co 1I! 9 co E c c .E s m m u x o m E E C W vm ¢t am. E o -0 CO p o .c a`) a) t>o m q -0 m co a m to o tl • I— W s F O m 2 0 m m U` Y -, Y a = Page E-353 » ; 0 hli L1.1 ® ) \ J \ E ] o k \ \ § ® e E [ ( 7 \ EE \ ! ) } E E } / \ ) ) 5 c \ c ) ® / § ) \ ] § ° / Ss.k o ® \ 2 a { \ } \ \ \ } \ \ \ k ) \ \ \ e � E e k ® ] 2 § ° 7 © 7 & - _ , El \ \} § \ ) ) E \ m \ o ) \ / ) { r \ ; p 451 (Ti _c # $ co $ / / - & P. a 2 to 2 2 } ) lj / \ , Et ) = / ; § . o qC 00 ° a) 15 ° 45 > 0 W \ \ \ \ Ei o O ! ® § / o < / 2 _ — E e ® \ o 0 / / ( ( a e W f 0 0 / / } \ } } \ 13 jI C.::k ill § OO ( ) N. a \ ci• 50 - s'0 ■ /\ G K f2 � � c C _/ \ AS # E \ - ) \ \ \ V E { < a ( « , 20 f \ 3 3 = ® t z al 12 \ ° ■ m > e E f c m % c 7 a E % 3 c c § 4 � Q � � G 0 0 ] O 3 0 ) ± « < < 0 \ ) \ \ ge E-354 VW ').44 . q Q k Z 2 fx -is o \ 13 aw \ ® - ) E \ ) E ( E / { / k / § \ \ / k / co a \ ° \ \ \ ) \ \ & \ / f % _ C E ) \ o- 2 / \ c it @g ` - - % g § .o & \ } \ k { { a c \ ; E At- ) } \ / / a \ a. / it \ f @ ) . ti ; $ % OS � \ \ [ # ) ) i / 0) co ] \ j / p § a : } E ) k Eck 41 ] Ie \ \ ) z 5 & - \ ! § f $ c cco ) \ ) / / $ K ( ] f § 0 § ) - g f [/ 7 § c E ® : CE t 2 0 0 � I Z a / - 3 \ a w c t � 2 \ e 06 § c - / I- ) \ 0 O \\) } / \// 0 0 k \ - } / k } ( q \ o % . o i k00 > > oon ] // G ) : ® = z Q . , - , » c E ) E II !4111 ' c iii \ ) ) $ j ! ! t k t \f ») \ / 2 / \ ge E-355 / � } I . ri _q H pz fa) in co ai / ) 0 E « ) E © r >d Li \ § \ _• ) - k Q o \ _ e § ( i ■ / j \ \ a k k -) / \ \ _ { / k ) # k 0 ` / \ C — ® ] / \ a a / ) j ) / E ` 7 ) S \ - L.( ; & § f $ ] ) ` ` ` e ) -' E < f ) 3 2 3 \ ) / E ) z \ P. .• \ ) li CO \ \ k 41 0 . 0- ® ) R. \ c r ® H m a - \ , k \ \� & : « u � ` t ° \ § { 0 co w LL D m . 0) \ ) 0 ° \ r; o / ■ \ > s ! ® b R $ r E - \ / /3 / = a O 0 06 - a o J 3 z / a a J / a ID \ \ 4 ../ext‘ A („0 \ m G ) \ J2J E §� } ) \ & ` E 2 � N 2 _< -o 2 « a \ •« ) 2 ( f { ° j \ \ w t \ / k \ tt� k \ \ / \ / / \ ' - f / } I • « fl ® CO CL 0 2 o f f o a E / o \ ] > \ ) z \ Page E-356 0 ` . 5In rNI q G m vs v) g \ , R k j / 3 : . g § E c c k , \ ' / ; k ) _ ) k ( , ii ) \ § 8 \ ) ` Q 7 \ / { $ c ' / 5 C E ) ) { ) § / / a \ ) ) \ ) \ / ) k • ( { \ } \ ) k § \ k \ . \ \ \ w \ \ ) 0 g a ; f Z / H § # ? 0 / E ) { . \ ; ) \•04 It ) - f a ) \ , j o / » ) & ! .21 \ o ® a m a8 \ / ) 74 * \ \} C > F-- ] # G § \ b ) ) G \ ) 0 -,:u GG 0 \ 0 00 0 0 e 0 » ] f / $ } Li 13 cC r- ; RS / kr? 2 t ` - N as = k \ f § j • / — en a % C ) ( ) } [ ) * 3 - a . Ion- a) 2 \ \ * EL CO L. \ � @ � 2 a. # � CO � -c \ ) / \ ) } \ \ \ ) c co \ -- ill 2 Page E-357 } S q q ! ri q ; ; E m ' $ ! \ ! ® a ` 2 . \ { \ ! ;co \ / \ ( § % q \ ( % \ \ [ \ _ _ ) 4i. E r % ) E c \ ; 0 a k w o { E c / 0 45 # ] ] / a o 5 k \ \ \ \ - � { \ 5 3 a 2 q \ \ 4 e f ] \ p \ s� ; \ / C 0' 2 E , t . \ & ! co N & { o n. ° 5 e » c ) C. \ , \ a » • / \ \ a ) , § / H '- ) ) \ n \ - � 2 } \ j \ \ _ y 0 c e Li- 7m m , ) r % ® } 0 \ § ) j j / C / 0 00 ( ( ± -f3 o } \ ] ( § k 3 \ § 22 » _, \\ \ d , c NJ ) . ! E k \ \ ] \ co \ \ \ } / / = 7 f ) / / \ } j \t\ 0 \ § } E c@ # 2 ° E | ] & { 2 m a, n e / n w = 0- § ± / / < ] @ « < « § 0 0 \ ] \ ) Page E-358 ..i.7-4,1%.:k?,:i .: E ! i N � :, J r'+ w vl E a) E U ) O O O 7 7 a U pp �/ y Y p 0 Uj r U C F-i4 i a U U .. ai E - 0 b 12 o o tL .c U w Et O 5) o (.0 b -•-o• Q O C 1 �`. i fl LL O o 0 0 0 O � o @ E c • ni E o. U ° u •O U a U) w ( c i ca a r o p- E U O m c .c w a) o a) a O� @ c o @ n O b a c in 0 O r, @ "O g, U L a •6 v 10 o (13 D.- V) @ to o m @ OD a) c @ o o n. 5 �. G) U Ti-t.1 E is a :t c a� 3 5 E ,L E U QCj 7 1•--' N - N @ C U Y UI O - U) n C9 :�1 n a 13 - c Z Cr v 0 a 0 b e o o ft1 C I , 4-, .� O l j CO o V m O Zs Cl.. o 47 O ca)) 1-2 • CO eL o rn c ,›,- cif - G U C C H of a_ rx a_ J 0 t I a I of I s i O E U N N 1 O i O o O G o o m U O - F Y CU ) > U c c rn e. Z Q ` v) (� 01 c o r q �' o a o o n N 8 a a o . a c • sp c c 2 'n - c ~O r o c, -o 1 H aNi 1❑-- o o 0 FQ- LI- c(o a) o ❑ o t, ..' o `" .60 cc rY 1F— 1— I— H-1 D Z O I— U ._H I— U H U p e of4. al C w r x -- J q a. U 0 rx 2 N o U 1:1 cr,Ir- a U 0 n_ ≥ C C N -p C }}a) C E fC �j t� N u) O 2 N ` o L O O yi as a u) c ° A 1-- c F� m c •� s s 5 U fW t- Cl) d o ai _c = O a N N N m O E c) co -) T (/) CO iL' .-i U) C) 0 - cr I j Z O Page E-359 `p pa,t,. • on,.art; 4 V ' v) `Wi 1 f S W D: 'r� sex '' `$ �. co O • < 1 •�'.ti;,A -1 - N. cj. *':t -. Chi .. co co 4 C q3 ft h U rYr .Y 1; > N o all b 6 S Teip . ei m n stIIIIIIIIllllhI g = o CE. at) C Q = 't t 3 3 e O * -'' -°o -moo e� p 0 co MI 0 JIIHIIIuIIIIfl c j V K CL H ;_1y i N h U OO0O O O J C . T-'qay Ny O •�'sr,k gt 2 1 V el 3 ;0 m 1 C [ / s In 1Kb O '`mss 9Y" `. Y > w ^l • k Page E-360 NORTH 1-25 • EIS _, : .. MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee MEETING DATE: March 8, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Complex ATTENDEES: PREPARER: Carter sBurgessmendy Wallach COPIES: nn' MEETING SUMMARY 1. Tom began with introductions and covered key points on the agenda. A brief overview of the schedule, description of NEPA process through DEIS, including upcoming TAC and • RCC meetings, agency review and role of local governments. 2. Public meetings tentatively scheduled for June this year. These will present summary of environmental analysis to date. 3. Region 4/Region 6 meeting held last Tuesday to discuss how North I-25 purpose and need will be for North 1-25 project and may not address all north metro problems. Our document will provide suggestions on how to address some of these problems in the future. 4. Our DEIS will go to Region 4 for review—June to July of 2007. 5. The presentation today will discuss impacts by component. Analysis will be done by component in order to find solution that best meets purpose and need. 6. Holly began by covering tolling results for Package B. • WSA looked at tolling in the years 2015 and 2030 varying toll rates in order to keep toll lanes operating at LOS C. • Access and egress will be located between interchanges 2 miles apart to avoid creating weaving sections in general purpose lanes. • Sometimes demand exceeded capacity in the TEL lanes so in 2030 the cost needs to go up to maintain LOS; other access and management concepts will be explored. • WSA suggested that we may be able to handle demand between SH 60 and Harmony • Road with single lane. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-361 NORTH 1-25 EIS 61 • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 8, 2007 2 of 6 7. Gene P is concerned about access on and off of 84th as it is today, it does not provide adequate distance to exit at 84th Avenue. 8. Holly stated the daily volumes are high in general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes in the metro area. Debra Baskett asked if LOS has been documented associated with these volumes. Holly reviewed the information about LOS included in the TAC handout. 9. Holly said when you raise rates, SOV participation drops and HOV demand fills the capacity. Test 2 was extending reversible section, and eliminating access at 120th and 84th. Eliminating access south of 120th helps manage demand. 10. She stated the projected annual revenue in 2030 would be $5 to 6 million. The team will continue to explore access scenarios. 11. Holly began to discuss Chapter 4 and described the detailed outline. Today we will cover daily volumes, arterial effects, traffic evaluation, rail crossings, and travel times. • 12. Chris described existing and future traffic volumes. Existing volumes are 60,000, in the northern portion of the study area and up to 125,000 up towards the metropolitan area. No-Action volumes increase 60 to 80% over existing volumes in 2005. Package A attracts more traffic except in the metropolitan area where Package B attracts more (since B adds capacity and A does not in the metropolitan area) Package A increases 80 to 100% over current volumes. Action: Holly will send table to Gene Putman and Debra Baskett. 13. Chris covered change in volumes compared to No-Action. Volumes on arterials parallel to 1-25 were also analyzed. Someone raised question about how transit alternatives would effect arterial volumes. Chris said overall transit would not effect these numbers much. Bill Andrews would like to look at V/C in the future for arterials. We may be able to measure on some arterials. Generally Package A offers slightly more relief on arterials than Package B. 14. Holly described traffic LOS. Existing counts were collected between 2004 and 2006. She offered to provide detailed counts if someone wanted it for specific area. Federal Highway Administration O Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-362 NORTH EIS • • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 8, 2007 3 of 6 Based on evaluation of projections to No-Action, interchanges are deficient. Package improvements include newer wider interchanges to meet needs. n y 'i °v ° f •a g p •I� tl l �S `&i -`3 i 3 7Y>>a. aatt c '. to ' z ` �! 3 J , + P V "Fti+ f�3•) I�If'�'4 -L $ i.g4 I b bf nAl t as n� ts., 4, L;.1 Mirri a'ta t4S�.1 ..I i�i4 1 S[P 1"�� r 1-,�, >r .J1Gai,i 7 ar - 15+166�'�,h1a , (e -:( y ,��: I r,r, +y .):44.E. `ipsli4.*41 vti. , ��Ct Y} .q++'cWiati,. " -�'elr I rpI s'�61A-g;r; tP yIitt2)3C'�' 1�1 Li(s� 137'_its IA R�� ej� �1 • 'Itie 'f' t+01,V,?i kel4 iw�.Ii.}tz+0't�� + i , SCAB {Ia(.da,I r - ' i�' te fttt-';11133,u `:11'41c''y1O 11.1 iM '1 i r;;,r Ir; 'i ai .+..i'x7'er Yea�'Y r_ aA+dj I �J'i i ''1,;y �'JC 17. fQ�'";#212t {ya ajji ly1.r+r v(9 I4CtO„4 *. t'°rjti tt +L7 foot 94d(t$+r -1:4104.01; , i 3tlIt'4m;, I•ZNa' ,t3h' ',,�.,F`�. `�..g1t.�z t3 Y., I `�� t�Ilr j' j ' 'i'j ' - 'p., '-s ) � .�, 'Yr r �Sij9 ieli � I-J"wr1 (' y� 31:1�i its i-411�t, +1 )I p • i r'� 1 „�'`yr^�fi'+�. -�s.-1 ,�, � hipp iont!` 0.6 �� des !'f f` I o. „C1r��sekii-c holgiv 4y teirf. Gene asked if we are taking people off of road —why is there and increase near stations? Holly said because of activity at park-n-Ride. Gene would like to show traffic is reduced at mainline because of stations. Tom said we can show reduction in VMT because of transit users. 18. Looked at station intersections evaluated along 85 for commuter bus service —3 intersections operate at LOS E/F. Tony Ogboli from City and County of Denver, asked about impacts of the buses downtown. Holly can show increase in volume, she will look at it and include discussion in the DEIS. 19. Paul covered rail grade crossing. There are 2 components of the system: existing BNSF alignment and the new Longmont— North Metro Connection. There are twenty-one new crossings, 16 would be at grade, 5 grade separated. Two types of analysis occurred. Using FRA program to predict accident information, exposure factors were calculated per FRA procedures. We will grade separate where we can, on major roadways, difficult in downtown urban setting, where structures are close together. • Where no grade separation, we will make improvements to reduce exposure at crossings. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-363 NORTH 1-2D ' EIS ' : • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 8, 2007 4 of 6 Paul will be issuing report. Action Item: Wendy to make sure Shonna gets copy of report. Dave Klockeman said we should have 21 grade separated crossings and zero at grade. Paul answered there are other considerations, such as cost, in ascertaining what is feasible for study. 20. Chris described rail ridership results. Package A = 5,800 total. He covered under Package A what mode people used to access stations. Rail components shown are one seat rides from Longmont to Fort Collins or from North Metro to Fort Collins. The rail ridership for the component test of Ft. Collins through Longmont at Boulder to DUS would be 3,300 riders per day. Lee at RTD would like detailed route information—ridership. Action Item: Chris to provide Lee detailed route information. • Deb Baskett asked what assumptions were made showing different modes at stations. Why no bus at SH 7? Because in the operating plan no bus access is provided at SH 7. BRT results for Package B— 5,850 riders per day. Deb B. made comments that when you look at BRT graphic, even though this is a Region 4 project, there is a lot of ridership in Region 6! Chris noted more riders board the further south you go. This is because BRT serves downtown workers. In Package A, lots of riders board at Erie Station. Gene - between triangle area, commuter rail south of Loveland 2,100-2,300, bus connections at 2,500 and 1,900, why not east and west rail? Tom commented it supports bus but not rail. Our concern is north/south connections may not support rail. A question was raised if both alternatives serve same population? Chris answered No, commuter rail serves 287 corridor, BRT serves west and east. There are key differences how people access stations, BRT has more VMT for people driving to stations. Deb asked if access to stations is from existing development or planned development or both? Chris said commuter rail serves more densely populated area now and future. Suzette asked if you are identifying Transit Oriented Development along these corridors. Gina • said we need to do sensitivity tests for TOD before we will look at them in FEIS. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-364 NORTH I-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 6, 2007 5 of 6 Deb asked how assumptions are made about how to access BRT vs. commuter rail. She has seen qualitative studies indicate people may walk or bike to commuter rail more. Chris said model does show a preference for commuter rail then BRT. Debra would like to be reminded of assumptions. 21. Chris covered travel times, looking at both highway and transit at once. He summarized end to end travel times. SH 1 to E470 in 2030: • No Action 64 minutes • Package A—54 minutes • Package B GP —61 minutes • • HOV/Toll — 43 minutes Tolled times have the best transit time. Action: Chris to add auto travel time along US 85 for comparison to Commuter Bus. Tony Ogboli asked from Fort Collins at Harmony to DUS, it is really 130 minutes for No- Action 93 for commuter rail and 72 for BRT. Chris said BRT can travel in exclusive lanes and stops for a very short time at median stations. Gene said that is assuming the DRCOG improvements from fiscally constrained plan is adopted, so busses do better than rail. Holly noted that this assumption is used all along corridor that north area will adopt improvements too (both NFR and DRCOG). Gene is concerned these may not happen. Tom said we face this uncertainty in total metro area. Gina said in NEPA we would look at what improvements are needed. By the time we get to ROD, the improvements must be fiscally constrained, on RTD and it be fundable. This is an AO requirement. Gene suggested there should be a model run if the projects don't become adopted. • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-365 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 8, 2007 6 of 6 Holly said this is why we are doing things by components. Tony asked then why are travel time results omitted from Fort Collins thru Boulder to Denver? Holly said we will include it. Lee said Longmont to DUS is conservatively approximately 75 minutes. This is why we have Longmont— north metro connection to reduce travel time. Tony said this raises questions about commuter rail from Ft. Collins to DUS this is a lot of time for such an investment. Tom said this is a good question and we are working to find best solutions. Lee asked if we are assuming same stops proposed with FasTracks and suggested considering skip stops. Jeanne Shreve requested that we include a comparison of travel time with skip stops at least for comparison. Action: Chris to add and estimate of CR travel time with skip stops through FasTracks. • 22. Jessica gave a Public Involvement update, talked about what is available and next round of public meetings in June. J:_Transportatlon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\TAC\TAG Meetlng_030807.doc • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-366 S i q \ w ; , H o @ E / ° 2 . j \ j ( § \ cp) \ § D : E \ k § { $ 7 \ k } \ 8 ! g61 8 s g \ ( @ 92 0 \ \ \ \ \ •5 \ .42 } / \ \ ) / § f ) Q © ic)7 / ) \ ) a ° ] \ f ( ; t \ 6 . Z \ \ e = > ( ( ) § 2 / ) j ) k \ \ \ # ) / } & ; it ! p 3-3 co• ( ± / ± \ 2 ( $ 0_ ) Z J + H R » ) m ! a { 0 f o > g / , § ) ; % § { / f ) \ . . I & / ! Co E ) ) pti * / \ ? j ) 7 ) . i / \ / \ } 0 E } / } 0 0Gm ( \ } } / 0 0 } \ / I Ii ) G \ } t ( \ \ : g ) E _ 3 / ®- a ! } c « \ 0 6 - 02 E E \ t E II ! a 2 � # -e E k } Z \ * 13 ) a ± 6 2 3 / ) § \ / , ) ) \ ) ] / / ) ) 0 ) \ } (7; --6. 2 Page E-367 • t 1 ; i. '4; ILI 1 0 0 1•r-F O N J a = O O �i a Z' O 0 N 3 0 0 L D U I �9 N E 00 C u vi 1E32 c y o E E o` m o n E 0 E 'E $ O 0u $ • 4o - n w a' E o r a o o n 0 3 00 o o a o 0 0 06 € O 3 of CA o o p "0 o y of 0 v c as @ 0 m a� y c `o # 1111111 00 - 3. m E 'd (1)i c g ° 0 o L. m .3 .n' 0 @ c 'o C y 47 c c 3 y c Y y m .1 g Y 'O N w O U N N N a a m .E E v a t n v aJ a° O CI a C O o cole C G N 0 J N o U. 'I V a • a' a' J Q. co F°- aa E; C o: t ad 5 .. a o c n 3 3 o _c o `0 0 o O 0 — a co b m E c v CD CO , y a) 'c o N o U c p n t CO E W O °� m to _ 0) o m _ Q 00 E p a_ o e p p ism o -. 0 irE 3 0 3 O Q 0 O c C 0 Q c c c ti o o H LL o a' a. o -3' o 0 0 ° 3 3 3 U 1- Q' Z H O W U U E2 I- LL O F- F-- FO- -6.a 0 a b Ei w C w a) ie g Q p 0 V O CC 2 fa _$> , i M O E c m _ — N Oa Y N U O N C N �? 8 E. N y C cHuiz O E O` i 'NO .c 3 p1 G 3 .C 0 N J t O Y a1O U a) C O W N — N a m tL c N -co U U �? �' as d p E u. c a3> 'C c U Ot Fi "a c w a) N LI- N a LL F- .- G7 d. fn U 0 J U O Ca Q' m Q Q 0 m 2 S o 2 1 Page E-368 \ 0 ≥ , ^q o Q / $ En i ® k o 0 j \ \ \ \ ) E r - g \ / • a \ \ 2 \ - } o co � { ! \ _ = r ) C ( Cu 2 42 ` \ @ } / o . t f ® a 2 _ ) \ Cu } E E ( \ \ ) \ • a a > \ ) ) 0 \ k } \ } / } \ \ } a ) \ P. - ori r.\ e o » A \ \ o \ \ / S a -CO � k � E H ) /} a oiii a EC ( 2 } � t 0 0 i ® o » @ / c § f \ > c ` P. \ \ 0 u j ) -Jo ® § j } \ § 0 0 o / /f § o { {/� ) / ) - \ / \ ± 0 0 0 0 ] 0 ) 0 corn 0 0 0 / 0 H H f a ca. U ) \E2 \ \ ) -o _ \ - 0 k NO ® C m \co k $ / co Eii ` ; \ kS \ \ \ § \ \ ) \ ± f \ \ ) ) ) 2k / . - 2 c / ) ( \ 0 7 H } \ 0 j i H \ ge E-369 \ } . q � 1 � q ; co La / 07 ° \ L. En o ai E " E § / > } § [ § ..... q § , e ( 4 » / C » ' 2 2 / \ \ N \ ) \ \ \ © \ \ ° E 0 \ { } / { \ / \ \ E ° 2 / / \ co K % ] \ / 5 « ` ( \ r { g f 2 O a ) \ t > E ) z } \ 9 ) } Q. \ { \ a _ } \ - fa 0 / ) C ) { to / \ ) Z Cr ± Tr2 \ ) , c . . f _ \ ° { \ \ C _ « e f § ( L / \ / / \/\ } k/ [ O } \ ce Z \ } } \ ) > 7 Ia A ,,> r-. § \ \ § E / . » / /� ] Cu 2 # ( / ! $ ` ° e @ z ; CO{ / o \ v $ a 0 2 _& rce ° � - - ° 0 \ D M ~ wk22 « ; « / » t , _ § a a e # » f { A / o ) = a I E coca § E 4 § ) z Page E-370 • \ . q q W / 2 , j to * k \ ( \ 4 K .• ® k , \ § & ( > Ci k / ( { / \ / r .,ca / j 60 \ Cu al /eD \ \ \ a f \ § •g a ` ! ` \ ) ! : c g \ \ § « 7 O rg = . } \ e § \ \ \ m - • ® , a _ . k § ) 7 •) } \ j 0 \ \ \ \ Z 2 } } t 2 \ / ) } tti 43 ig 6 > 7 = % k \ • - : 3 ] } \ P. li / R ° » r » \ \ / / \ \ \ id O \ \ / \ , \ 45 2 % \ tc E NO$ O N E ® e e « } 0 \ ) 0 j } / 0 \ \/\ 0 0 ) 0 0 / \ \ ® ( k / o 5.tz O to \ \ §§ ] \ k R 2 § i ( - o / 0� ] J / \ & ) & ( z J { / : / k e ) ® Ill Era 41 ) + k ) . { 2 / § f 2 z s f o , qR 2 = s _ = e a -6 °- ) a � 2m � - ) 0 \ \ \ ) Z \ H \ ) } 0 \ ) gePa E-371 . I \ y• ri j m ; W E ; ( ] k ,__Q \ § E \ \ ) 0 \ j & \ ) \ ( ) R ( o / / _ ; ( ) E q o / J ) f \ g § ) I-- } j } \ / 9 \ \ 03 I § ] •a E ( a \ \ / _ \ / { k \ ( \ \ ( \ / 7 / f § § a / / } \ ) / / 0 / / ) ) j \ \ j \ \ \ ± & R \ ) \ s _ § 2 ® \ \7 n : = c c o E . 0- ® IL ® i c \ C. Os \ \ § ) \ / \ / ) } 15 c ) \ f \ \ 0 n 2 / Loci f o ] } o ) * j , 2 - § , ( \ } \ / o \ \ \ \_CO} / \\) Z ( \ } \ 11 / �) tz a \ 0 u 2 § 7 ® � C.�22 \ \ ` ` ` - J ) / •E f E : : e 9 ( ( k \/ k7 I ) I / / ) / } / / \ \ } / \ k k ` 0 / � 2 % f \ j \ w 0 ) / ) \ \ / \ \ { Cu \ Page E-372 0 } In q } w ! ; rri ) k jai E to a a 2 0 § § ( } p.", \ , § . E ° % ] / a , m 2 E � 7 Q L « / O. § \ a0 } 0 \ \ jk { \ t \ I \ \ al c ct)> k ( / \ / � \ \ � ti n \ \ E { f - © a7 \ f \ \ } k \ / \ 4 ( / k / = a \ I < a & c CO 2 \ ) \ • a f . \ c \ 2 } ± .b to \ k � 0 \ C •a 22 2 3 » I • z •j 1,3 / [ , EL k ° c \ § ( — § § 5 7 ` CU Z. ` f ! 11 - § \ w \ ) k / G } § § \ \ 3 ( : 3 F j . \ - \ \ Ores \ 0 \ } \ e » m m = e & w e y ) g f w R a a / } 7 / } \ \ a. § 2 � } hG° CO E 2 B k _ 17, 2 } e - , - _ co k k } )\ _ \ F • k 2 © \ ) \ / \ a) ' - - ) / k \ , / �. o ° \ 2 ® ! 2 / ( G @ 4 2 — ) / ° KR \ Q f : C J N E C f a , 4- cna. - < J / I § % ) \ 2 CO § 3 \ ] ) ) Page E-373 . $z ., 4 3 a '!+ W vi $Yi 0 O Q E N. L `C 0 Z o �/0� -- [- ® c� Wg. co V N r S4 j N, . 1 E • •�- 4 ` 0 a p �° c,,,,,:).:,„.„.. ..5. m v ,Q' d 2 ft E d . ;}-' s. c, a Si C F� C "3O - s -T V - �� o m 0 I 0 :76 ti N r•rh n sp• .i. 9 if at,'. tr o z aC�1 p rt 1 e L: t<..4 - t 7 0 c rc Pntr`pa 3 x� Vz'-t. Q tl Q o e 3.� £" 3 3 34 �, e c o F- ,ski. o o [ J F U U ,� J `J (-- J l'^ 6 so- 53 .O tj_ , m . t t} \ n r t ,• '1*Ak 4'O 1 . S V) S n O U) c C 3i'- n OM °Fmecna I— ' a Z lY a !j 1 �J 4 • Y Page E-374 •' NORiti FL) a 'arr Meeting Minutes Technical Advisory Committee EIS • May 10, 2007 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Information. cooperation. transportation. Page 1 of 5 MEETING DATE - May 10, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO/FHU —Tom Anzia SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. OVERVIEW 1. Gina McAfee started the meeting with introductions. Gina M. briefly reviewed purpose and need, and briefly described the No Action, Package A, and Package B. She asked if there are any questions, and then handed it over to Brian Werle, who reviewed land use and covered the agenda. 2. Brian W. discussed the outline for the chapter. It will be abbreviated sections. He described the study corridors, and he also talked about impacts being analyzed by component. ► Generalized existing land use was compiled from a number of sources based on the year 2000. • ► Future land use was compiled but more difficult because comprehensive plans may already be out of date. We assembled this in 2003. ► We compared land use (existing and projected to 2030). There is a shift from agricultural to development. There is also a projected increase in open space and parks. ► Someone asked what causes reduction in surface water? Conversion to agricultural and changed designation into open space. 3. Direct impacts have been associated with No Action, Package A, and Package B. ► For No Action: minor improvements compatible with projected land use. ► For corridors, direct conversion of land use along transportation corridors. ► Brian W. also covered new proposed alignment along Longmont North Metro. ► Transit stations are mostly compatible with plans and through meetings with jurisdictions. 4. Some zoning has not been updated to meet station locations. It may not be identified until preferred alternatives are identified. P. Maintenance facilities are congruent with zoning in some areas but not in others. 5. Ben Herman talked about indirect impacts. Ben H. gave definition "impacts caused by the action, but occur....farther out in time". This is a challenge because of the size of • the study area. So there is a lot of interregional dynamic. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration • Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 051007 MMDrafi.doc Page E-375 Meeting Minutes NORTH I-25 r Technical Advisory Committee EIS May 10, 2007 • 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 2 of 5 ► There was an expert panel to talk about these dynamics. The team asked group about consequences of selecting packages. No Action: ► Interchanges are constraints, they need to be improved. This may occur under No Action. From land use, as I-25 becomes more congested, development might be pushed east and west, where there is existing capacity. Package A: Could shift activity: ► Commuter Rail would intensify urban centers. ► Longmont would serve as a regional hub, due to commuter rail connections. ► Corridors would serve as connectors Package B: ► There would be less support for urban center development along the western corridor ► Likely more dispersion along east-west corridors. • ► BRT stations may not attract increased residential densities. ► Bill Sirois described TOD and RTD's role for TOD. The main elements of TOD are: - on the integrated connection of a development to the transit station - 'mixed use' is important but not critical - pedestrian connections are critical - 'A to %: mile in size ► The role of RTD is to maintain viability of a transit station. The different agencies and developers have overlapping roles. There are primary roles of RTD, developing and local governments. Others have secondary roles, such as Chamber of Commerce, DRCOG, etc. ► The TOD process mirrors the environmental process, through different stages of planning and implementation. Earlier planning is important. ► There is no clear data regarding the TOD distinctions due to modes. Commuter rail has the most influence. ► Alignment differentiators are important between a freeway and rail line. The freeway is a barrier, not a friendly pedestrian environment. ► The market must be there; transit itself does not create the market. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 051007 MM Draft.doc Page E-376 Meeting Minutes iNujl1HI27 Technical Advisory Committee EIS • May 10, 2007 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 3 of 5 ► Kathleen Bracke asked about indirect impacts on Package B. Why would it go to the north of SH 14? Kathleen B. also asked if it should go along Harmony. ► It is due to not just transit, but the influence of highway improvements. ► Full size maps will be sent out with the meeting minutes. ► Suzette Mallette asked if TOD scenarios will be modeled. For the draft EIS, no new models will be performed, but will be for the preferred alternative in the FEIS. ► Dan Carl asked if the analysis of the direct and indirect impacts have been done yet. No quantitative analysis has been prepared yet. The focus has been on the comparison between the packages for general broad patterns. ► Caution was expressed to be not so quick to assess if local planning are compatible. There are many detailed plans that may be in progress. The support of the community is often supportive of transit. Please contact the community before stating an unacceptable condition. ► Dick Leffler noted that in communities developing on both sides of I-25, there is a • challenge about connectivity. ► A representative of Centerra noted they recently introduced 'mixed use' to developments, but it is 1/2 mile off of the interstate. He doesn't think you will get much closer than that. He wants to know what will be selected and if it is unfunded. It was good that Centerra didn't preclude any of the packages. Because both are unfunded, it makes it more of a challenge. Loveland ► There was another comment about the station downtown. Is there anything they can do to accommodate a station that may or may not occur? ► Bill S. noted to avoid the bad things from happening. Preserve opportunity-don't put big box development at a planned station location. Make a policy decision for preservation. ► Mitigation is typically a transportation action, but an agency cannot change jurisdictions and land use impacts. ► Gina McAfee gave an example of convenient private property to a station. This is mitigated by the Uniform Relocation Act. Transportation agencies can encourage people to do things or support local govemment. CDOT can encourage smart growth. • Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 051007 MM Draft.doc Page E-377 Meeting Minutes NORTH I25 , �z ��_ Technical Advisory Committee EIS ., , „, May 10, 2007 • 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information. cooperation. transportation. Page 4 of 5 ► Gina M. invited comments regarding mitigation. Tom Anzia asked how mitigation is addressed with two alternatives or after the preferred alternative is selected. Gina M. said this normally begins before preferred alternative is selected. i. FRODO thinks education about station opening dates. Adoption plus one year, providing specific steps of evaluation. Provide an education clearing house and look for opportunity enhancement. ii. Also look at two types of stations. a. Parking lot and platform b. Enhanced and appealing stations ► Kathleen B. has transportation oriented development overlay district. It dovetails with Package A. Fort Collins would provide any information to come up with overlay districts. She would share with other communities. You can do this prior to change. ► Ben Herman noted that land use is not the purview of CDOT. EIS is not an efficient working document for local government. This needs to be"unplugged" from DEIS to be useful. Local government planners will not consistently reference the EIS directly. ► Gina M. said on FasTracks, several jurisdictions are doing their own station area • planning. ► Bill S. said RTD is doing corridor-wide workshops. Each corridor will be summarized as a report. Maybe do small level of sketch planning for specific stations. ► Erin Fosdick with Longmont made a comment about identifying the areas that activity nodes that can still be used for pedestrian scale development. They would accommodate transit development and appropriate zoning. ► FRODO —create a stand-alone appendix summarizing these things as an appendix to the draft. ► Bob Garcia noted that CDOT has championed the EIS effort, but planning for things such as land use must be championed by the local agencies. Action Items: ► Send copies of handout slides (full page). ► FEIS should include land use/transportation modeling. Include amount of land consumed for different land use categories for preferred alternative. Federal Highway Administration •Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation • TAC 051007 MM Draft.doc Page E-378 Meeting Minutes '''t ,' t '"' '-_ ) A� Technical Advisory Committee EIS • May 10, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. 1:30 PM to PM 3:00 Page 5 of 5 ► Consider compatibility with existing land use plans in general context. Shouldn't be too quick to say incompatible when plans don't specifically discuss transportation improvements being considered in this EIS process. ► Mitigation suggestions include promoting education of land use issues and post EIS follow up. Include helping communities take advantage of opportunities and steps required (i.e. update comp plans), TOD opportunity enhancements, corridor approaches. Consider some way to"unplug" this component for communities to use beyond the EIS. ► Revise No Action induced growth graphic to include no action improvements farther north of the Denver metro area (expand shaded development focus area for infrastructure and capacity). ► Revise Package B induced growth graphic to remove central 1-25 shaded area north of SH 14 (not much induced growth development north of SH 14). NEXT TAC MEETING: Thursday, July 12, 2006 1:30 PM -3:00 PM • SW Weld County Services Complex (Combined Meeting for RCC/TAC) • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation TAC 051007 MM Draft.doc Page E-379 P in v) N. W z i N E N co R'i a p O O O O U O U N N O > U I ��ji • F--� ' a -° °a E O O a °" to ° E `° u r 0 ,- @ ai +c v° m c°� D E °U LA Y3 cu E 0 m o@ a g o 0 a. 0 c LA E .O /atea E 5 2 °o c p> .c c -9 c °' O g ca NO3 n O U L co 'V Ui _6- N a@ Q°' a Ois. pca I F.. v N N i cu m N O N C 2 = 'O• y $ tc m • E m y mm a W E E o m >' @ I om d o a)) n v CO a` 0 . a x d O -o P. Vi d O Io O a c 2 co I-- - a c4 a E W U 0 p U C N O N f`Q (6 `a co try' c c 4- �o O a a • Z w as c C C r N N 2 2a. d z a. z - F h 0 y ii a e, a, > 0 15 to 5 's a) 005 13 as U N N ° .N m a L N G' K U m e 2 0 = O L W W N O' N m = Q N 0 0 3 2 c c.' I 47. C m W oa a7 Ur C E c O a F- o N E F- c o 0 0 ❑ O F. 0 0 m O 7 `:i' o°` a O o . 2' m .N U m H. O U 0 H CD IL 0 U O m IL 0 I - Cr U U 0 IL 0 `a 13 a '�� W c O o U O z 2 yU o e' c ❑ .. . tV y 3 m N a) ccaoo pU ro v o co o Y t m c m ¢ a ❑ c m m _ 2 0, w ,- °) Q C "N c °� y5c .a 00 E E o _ I . � o act) m a 23 ° m m �' m 0 m CO m CO N !W � y2 0 0 E m m > m Z _c t > c t- I°- U) = o o m` UN -°, Y CO z o Page E-380 0.-,....i.war j . ,......tiar ,..:...,,,‘ ,.. as.6., - 4,<._,.. . t.\ ii . ; § \ / E5. § § 2 k ) ) § ; k ] ( E \ k ( } Co coo a § 0c .C § a .j Q R [ § g \ a g 7 \ § \ > { @ , Cl) » 2 * ) . ) _ § © — ( ° t ) k » \ 8 q ` § \ e / E t . ; r CO § E ! E \ / t / # \ 2 - \ / a ) ® / k \ co i w a ( ] & - - f } © _ f § § \ / ) E ) ) ) \ \ § { \ E \ ) / { \ / ) & I co _ ) k $ coUt \• ( » - ) Q ° L. ,_ \ \ / i $ / / , Q { ° ) ] f 2 { ` \ e ) o § , y / / ) \ t \ \ § / } \ / } o k \ / \ - ) / \ \ § o o ( i 0 0 0 e a z e o 0 o w w z o e e a o a # , > 10 § 4..-E" 5 ) ) ) 0 0_ S .2 f- E ° _ B J / ) { # mom F & k L. .8 ) \ $ a = — 2 « k �~ k � o 0 0 \ \ / 0 - 0 ± / ) \ e § . 0 _ _ \ 3 & R � , 7 .3a... f C e -- e 7 ; - I.L.C 5 .0 » ® 4 ■ , ma_ o o 3 ± e o 0 « < 7 j m ) \ \ / ] larl o Page E-381 :. 4 ` s » • F. it T I , -- d \ � y E e = �2 \ / \ %.„, )I4, o 2 . .E 0 k j k ^ _ ( t § , © g f E o c v o \ } j / # Tig / CO / @ % ; 2 § f q ) - ! 2 \ E { / \ E C ® ) E E \ § CT so \ j } ) \ f / a ) / Eez / y ; \ o 91. k fr \ ) — $ ) � ) / ) \ a3 C ` \ J / ii ) / & » — ® 2 = ® t , # \ k / * k \ c m ) ; t k co OO / \ \° 7 ® \ / 3 ) \ \ / « \ \/C G \ _ 2 t % t / } \ O 2 O e Om B / n I ) } } 0 O \ \ ) \ \ , 2 § $ it G ) >- � , o 0\ § \} B ® 5 : \ . E § E 2 m x \\� \ A \ O 2 / in o \ cu a \ \ t at \ 1 ? = C k , 0 m � � n � § < 2 a. / CO E ] 2 i / \ \ \ # tea& \ ` } --- ID , , If) \ = q | m H k \ . \ ® E co § 2 ; E / ) \ E k ! ° ( \ q § © ; ) } B , \ = R / q LA C \ \ ) } { \ \ ( E ilE } \ 0 3 ® / } 0 in k \ § \ f J : / ( { { \ $ \ E p / / \ $ E k ( .ct ) ) 3 $: 3 \ r ( En [ \ \ ) / o / ) \ 4-1 Q. ) { @ \ / ® ] ) & E Co } • ) ` { ) t f If \ / k _ / _ > @ J b Z p ® 4" E. m § f 2 § � § § 0 I c a § a ) ® Z ° m ct G ) \ \ \ / }/ \ I \ -k 0 * - wits } \ { - = H 0 O 0 = u of 4 0 0 3 IL 1.1. * w o f \ k ul § k sl 5 $ § j ■ � ); % G a m o ] 2 k § & E(ti ` ) Sia § 4 § 2 \ g { ) ® « ) ( ) e 3 ` \ $ © �� « aa. t7 ° 2 ) } .- \ ® / ) /( I \ / � � q ■ e a g e _ ® a , / ® _ } § a 2rC00- 0 ] f 3 3 3 ) ) k § ) i ) / § / * « Page E-383 / } • . \ � q q K ° E / k ` k ° ` Z 6 E \ / \ ) m \ " ) [ § RI » { \ \ : / ) | § / ) / 0 c \ { $ \ \ \ ® \ \ & .2 q § \ E \ \ c ) ) / \ / § o { \ ® \ ] ± co ( / f / k % 4 co = f ) § o 7 / ( \ ) & / 2 0 ( ) \ / E Cl a } % / R \ ; — \\ \ \ mO 2 ) i ) g § 5 / c 2-• \ \ _ : 0 / ! 2 A E ± co / j / e / ' ct + ) E= R = @ ) o f $ ] 2 2@ , > 2 y { c o f E E / E ° f m 0 } ] / •A \ 0 00 2 3 } 0 0 ± ] $ \ / ] • G ( § 7 . A 0 . ( 2G ) § \ \ k ` - k ( -cr) o c //§ ] m CO 43 k } / ) ' t § / \ k } \ § I � � ■ & .. ] _ / J \ 2 / 5 , § / ; % 7 » ® » , / rn � d j \ \ - 2 \ / \ k \ 0 S k ) j \ Page E-384 ry 5 } 0 .s..; • P 4 ^ E q d E E G / \ § ) 2 . \ \ ` E \ ` § \ { Cr[ ® , al 45 1-4 ci \ E 0 - } 3 [ ( \ » 7 0 « L \ [ / •k ( \ / \ \ } ) ) > © ` } \ \ \ \ e / \ j Z \ ( \ / / } io/ f \ \ c § s- \ r - a e ) - \ ` \ 3 { V \ \ ) \ •] \ _ / § \ / « 4 . ; . _ . \ , ( $ \ / .1.:3. ] } E o \ � � / / III (/ 2 O § & 2 4 § z \ " - o ( o \ » \ / - $ a) ) < E c G » — } 2 % ( LL ] / \ e % c 0 0 \ ® L_ 2 F ) } ) ) F \ \ \ 0 j \/ ( 2 § k E 0 R t e cc e m m H o Q ] 000 z CC u.. o e c \ 7 $ 0 Id Lu ! )� A2 / ] ] \ ! E / a2 \ 2 { .- § # ) / & -I+ % } $ I { / / k \ • 2 /a. / 2 CL G J 2 CL ) 2 g \ / 2 CO A a) ? \ « : # e c + ° 2 9 & R 7 ! ` ) § n 0- G 6 ) < ) \ d J 0 « 2 0 0 \ a) \ \ \ Page E-385 _tea ; - -- ---- t 7 • -- — - -- — _ \ 2 0 �� 4 R Q | W a 45 $ al [ . \ ( / e / \ E j e % ( § / f , t a I— , / « g % c f 2 / ( ® ; § \ \ ( \ \ \ k \ 0 \ CI Ct al \ \ \ / k \ \ { t LI 28 ) ® 9 ® ® / & \ { q ! a » 2 gm \ } •/ ) § ® ( 7 ` » ) 7 / § \ E ! § } 2 2 \ Ni u \ \ \ \ § \ 2 •§ / Si } ± / I al a CI { \ m « s Ci CO C c J $) \ / / / ) 2/ } § \ - z ) . \ \ k b 2 e G 7 E ] « : ) k ) ) / k d k { CO\ { \ k ( \ \ .0 R C c k \ F \ k \ § k \ \ \ } \ /U. CC I— I- e e cc e / w o o w e e e u } k } § § / k . - ) \ \ . o 8 ` « § / u e Cl.) # « k ) k g ( / \2S � « G o $ ) 2 k 2 t- 2 / \ f \ j ) ] ` f k } \ \ / k / k ) ( I- § } ` f ) k { k n ' • 3 f § 3 2 \ g / § k / k ] E } / ) ) gePa E-386 • gc si .i a • ) r'ti. S Q ‘3 �l J Z -, '� I * D y V LA @ �� 3 ' N 3 V C i _` N U S 4 c! C U— o� .9 —c . a t.-:- \) Z N 3✓ CI. 5 .... . t--! t. Q O p h ).O o • • dN i ,��L�- `LI1C V` J,j a • w Vie,` j Ct S e z e 2 I 14tz t C7 N N '� t " > t a g. F=- ; o o Imo, o o l- •ti Q v o ‘1/4.1 V a w >; T w r. Q 8 O ° I V 1.4 U —, O N ore c N Q a cn O E as'C .� 2 v cJicgm � es :Ls d � ,� F- 2e- md Z 2 Page E-387 Meeting Minutesv('1R11.1 I-23 Technical Advisory Committee EIS 5'" Regional Coordination Committee July 12, 2007 information, cooperation, transportation. • 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 1 of 4 MEETING DATE - July 12, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO/FHU—Tom Anzia SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION A. OVERVIEW 1. Tom Anzia kicked off the meeting and then introductions were made. 2. Reviewed schedule regarding upcoming meetings. o September(Noise & Vibration), o November (Environmental Justice and Water Sources), o January(Natural Area Impacts). • Tom A. said in spring of next year, we are looking for input on DOS developing consensus on FEIS and the Preferred Alternative. Tom A. would like to start at 3:30 pm on technical subject and then start RCC meeting at 5:30 pm. to the purpose of the 5:30 PM meeting is to review collaborative process and verify process for building consensus for the Preferred Alternative.. • Tony Ogboli said 3:30 PM may not be a convenient time for TAC members. Tom A. • said this was feedback. We heard that a later time works better for the RCC, therefore TAC is being moved back to 3:30 PM to accommodate the RCC. • Tom A. would like to verify RCC attendee list and review collaborative process and schedule during upcoming 5:30 PM meetings. 3. Tom A. introduced Gina McAfee. Gina M. reviewed the purpose for recent meetings, i.e., present analysis results on resources from build packages. She reviewed build packages and the DEIS process. 4. Gina M. said we are talking about air quality at today's meeting. She talked about geographical analysis, boundaries, attainment and non-attainment. • There is a requirement in CAA that projects must be in metropolitan regional transportation plan before federal agencies sign-off on it. 5. Gina M. said, in general, many pollutants will decrease, due to tightened emission controls. Over time, they may increase again since we drive more. This will have policy implications. • Someone asked if we make adjustments for hybrid vehicles and account for different fuel types. Gina M. said we cannot account for this in the model, but we do some sensitivity analyses in DEIS. S Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transporta rage E-388 Meeting Minutes tes '..alt iil , .J mar^gt ,¢. w Technical Advisory Committee EIS Wit Regional Coordination Committee• July 12, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 2 of 4 • Gina M. said we do this in compliance with 1990 CM. We need to make sure that it won't exceed established NAAQS conformity. Transportation projects need to go through analysis to make sure they are in conformity. We look at mobile sources. Projects must come from a conforming plan and must be in the STIP. The ROD needs to be fundable and come from conforming plan and TIP. If it is in the plan, FHWA may still sign it, as long as it will be included in TIP. • Conformity requires that the project cannot contribute to CO and PM1o, no new localized hot spots. • Plan and TIP must be consistent with omissions budget in SIP. We do analysis with APCD and EPA. 6. Jill Schlaefer discussed trends more than specific data. Jill pointed out attainment areas, NAAQS, measured by matter in the atmosphere, plus MSATS. EAC for ozone covers most of front range counties. Ozone backs up against the mountains. Ozone is created by a variety of chemicals, and then combined with sun, become ozone. 7. CO has been declining with time. This is due to emission controls. For PM1owe look at emissions by engines. Airborne dust is ten times the emissions • generated by engine PM1o, but engine PM1ois more dangerous. 8. NO,(many oxides), plus VOC's are primary concerns generated by engine exhaust. Powerplants and other industrial things cause it. Major concern is in Larimer and Weld counties, which are in EAC areas. Increased VMT in 2030 is what is evaluated for air quality. • We are also looking at a change in the economy. Agricultural activities generate pollutants, but agricultural land is being developed. Engines will increase pollutants. We are already at the edge of non-attainment for ozone. The ozone threshold may be changed or lowered. With proposed change, it would definitely be in non- attainment. 9. Other problems are nitrogen near Rocky Mountain National Park(RMNP), which is doing environmental damage. • Six toxins have been analyzed in MSAT's. These MSAT's will go down between now and 2020 due to emission controls. 10. There has been an eighty percent increase(49M) in VMT over 2001 on North I-25. New proposal could add 40 to 60 buses. Rail makes an incremental difference in system-wide VMT. 11. Summary of results: 2001 - 28M VMT daily—Looked at interim year and 2030. Emissions are affected by not only VMT but speed as well. Increased speed increases emissions. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department ofTransportpi8§e E-389 Meeting Minutes Technical Advisory Committee EIS Regional Coordination Committee July 12, 2007 information. cooperation. transportation. • 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM Page 3 of 4 12. Tony Ogboli (CCD)asked about why VMT numbers for Package A are higher than Package B, with transit in A. Total VMT accounts for transit, but people need to travel to transit. Plus, Package A has general purpose lanes, which increases VMT over Package B. BRT removes cars. In addition, ridership is low on transit, and the study area is so large. 13. Preliminary results show significant decrease between today's emissions and future conditions. Emissions are slightly higher between 2015 and 2030, due to degrading of auto fleet. In addition, moving traffic from arterials onto the highway generate more emissions, because of increasing speeds. 14. MSAT's will be downward trends with ongoing time. Diesel PM declines significantly. Question: Why is there no change in pollutants? Is this because of controls in technology? Answer: Yes. However, with engine deterioration, it will go up. Emissions are declining while ramping up VMT on road. 15. Hot spot results: Done for representative sites in the study area only for CO. Numbers are small relative to threshold. 16. Mitigation: Region wide is more difficult to address. Strategies for local agencies were • reviewed. For the project, Bus fleet and rail vehicles should be Tier II and IV standards. Construction mitigation to reduce dust is very important. 17. A Larimer County representative said "It is surprising that there is no significant difference in packages between 2015 and 2030." ■ Tom A. responded that we are seeing this partly because of the large study area. Gina M. said this is not surprising because she has seen it on other projects at regional levels. Gina M. stated that, if you look at localized areas, you might see differences that are more noticeable. In addition, part of it is constraint of tools. 18. Gina M. said we would dissect information by maintenance attainment areas to better ascertain impacts. 19. Vicki asked why nitrogen deposition in RMNP is an increasing problem, but results show a decline. Gina M. said this is because we look only at mobile sources. • Lisa Silva said there are still NOx in the future. Because of ammonia from catalytic converters, this may be a factor in the future. 20. Lisa Silva talked about ozone, 8 hour standards, and exceedance highlights. Rocky Flats is where most of the exceedances occur. Exceedances have been recent, but have not been averaged over 3 years. If Rocky Flats hits .088, we would be in non-attainment. • • CDPHE will submit data to EPA in October. We will violate it. Control measures on • mobile side include gasoline composition, and tailpipe controls are most effective.Oil and gas sector regulations are more stringent. It seems to be making a difference. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportat jmega E-390 Meeting Minute Technical Advisory Committee EIS Regional Coordination Committee information. cooperation. transportation. • July 12, 2007 1:30 PMto3:00PM Page 4 of 4 • What happens when we end up in non-compliance?That is to be determined, but transportation funding may be at risk. • New ozone standard has been proposed, which may be primary for secondary standard. This may be finalized in October, then non-attainment would be official. SIP's would be modified to address this, i.e. more control measures, such as vapor recovery and VOC's from paint. • Do they limit fueling times? Lisa S. does not know. They need to look at new list of control measures. • Bil Haas asked what is short-term implication of non-attainment. Lisa S. not sure what it means for projects like this. Gina M. said Denver was non-attainment for many years. The analysis does not change, but SIP commits the region to control measures. If those do not work, transportation funds could be at risk. This happed in Atlanta, GA. EPA and CDPHE would work together. • Brad Beckham said emissions budget would be tightened and harder to meet conformity. Many projects may not be included in the plan. The budget is related to • standard, which becomes a difficult policy type of dilemma. • Bill Haas had comments about EAC. He said this approach is novel. There are about a half-dozen around the country. If EAC were not in place, we would have had non- attainment a while ago. • Jason Longsdorf(CCD) looked at tables, and Denver, CO exceeds emissions budget for CO. NEXT TAC MEETING: Thursday- September 13, 2007 Time: To Be Determined SW Weld County Services Complex Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration• Colorado Department of Transportation rageE-391 : \ , � f \ . •` q en ca ` o Z 1 ) \ ) ) % ) g ) > ) - / o ^ » \ a , E § R » t o { \ t / # 3 K ° § o ° / E di & 7 ei = ( \ - \ \ 9 » o ® k \ k \H \ c:3 \ : « ( \ } \ z 0. / / \ { / •. g § \ \ /\ I ~ ( « P ) ) a ) / 4j /\ \ 2 / ) ) \ ) ) ` ) ` ] / \ I z ± CI c. * } cd I—. o $ / k / f \ E / � / \ \ « : E y C ± » \ a _ / $ 2 2 y ! w C / ) 1p m ` / .07 / / / / { / \ ) j § \ ; \ / § / \ / � ~ \ { / \ \ \ \ c \ \ri__ a 2 � { r o - 4 ! 0 - o ) ° 00m / ( / / / / Y,‘ \ j Q / } k ) COLuX % ; 4‘ ) ® , G § a § \ � ) \ / k / \ - a ° 2 G f # a w , . 9 ® e 2 ` _ § & _ \ ci\ / k ; ) / { ) § com ) \ 2co O k \ « { ! - / 2 e i CO" \ / / ) \ \ 0 Q2 � . ) / \ / / ] A k \ / CO \ 2 z ) 3 ) $ ge E-392 Ettifttr\ } L � ) ) F LT--I ! ® @ • a cs c / } 0 0 0 ] } CO IC E R o \ j \ \ \ \ E k . 2 ( a O ; \ ] ; § \ E -CO \ } / \ ^ ` = -E r k @ / / { ( E RI / { * a \ 7 \ \ f 7 / \ .O c 2 4. \ E , C \ i \ E ( E } t f 24 / o / / j ) \ f f C q ) C ) o CO L. \ ti 2- TD Et )77 -o - _ ) o / a) - k ! & / ; A + ] Jr ) z \ C ) ) c . ® # o CO Eai c » CO \ -c E /§ •\ ] \ j v « ) 2 O a ? / A 3 e k r43 , taco \ \\ j / ( ) \ \ \ ( \ / \ } § ] G $ o o bm O O O f O 0 e e e a o co E-- • # \ § * § O. O § 0. ) O co ) \ § § _ ® ® = 7 E \ ; E '0 JMk � m \ 0 w \ ) \ \ $ a f E \ \ { \ ) 0 § % & \ c 2 •? 6 k § a) { } o + , , ) j } 0 � � . a ` ` _ _ _ _ E — c e 4 CI) O. a ) / 0 y a « 4 k / > ] & - / A / CO 5 Page E-393 -- q • 9�.{:�.-y��4/ _.. 6M1Sv'Sr�` I In 4 , rLi W , 0 E c o i E y to j OU co C U P4 i UO J 5 O . > C us ,Q O to l p 00, O Y O J O OU y 9 7'.06 U ` co N J Er 4+ ! 2 a� .O. ` N 4 N .O Q c h O O O a °v - N o u v m ° E c m - U o 8n N o E U co 3 t . O LL °� a� U C fl) 2t • II a E ai a L E 8 r) 0 E - 3 "' o -c @ @ o • .a ...1 -°a o, = m a' E @1 c�. o -a -5m U .o a) aci v0� 6c .c) @' c 5 @ 3 m @' 6' -c) O ct o_ it c @ Cr a o@ n 3 m N z. D `� @@ tJ R. > Cu a) crit > .c O E o a c a> o@ m a@ > N a a N c c c o a 2 o a a c c c c ,� a z o F- g 8 E El E $ c7 v N m in m. EL 1 N o o C ~ U L.. O O ? o 6 c N c0 N -c c c a a a) Lc c :6 cU N • 0] O O E .a 0 • 0�4 a � a t-CY F - a 2 w C. C ..>`. C 0 N 2 22N�n cg C C N U O c C U U C cn U j o lL O O N 5 o v a`i U U d 3 C to o O cc° > E III F- ~ ¢ ` Oral: o 46 d N o n Y c E O O E QQ c v v c U 1-E- 6 U 0 UU U H U U LL .j Cl- U U F m m F x G Ct W X W 2 ..gl .�' } O �l p U `/ U W CC a cc o Ncc J W QOM O al (6 G _ p O Y C Y N 4 N O O o N N T O O N E N > Ln C 3 2 C O 07 .0 c+i 2 w n >' z Z o rn w O c° c O ca el- All E 0. N o E E c_ c >, In 'c E�- � rt4a a c o o > .° CDN c ofp� a o N -o m t mac .. z J r- Cl) Si U E M Y U N t F Q f) W C7 U Page E-394 i Q V• um r� S C psi W0 4 Oo p U C -t fir1 G, a i co o E o a c y l`Y Z o coo E' N m o = • t A e U N C = O U - 0 O N E Ta ,A :5 ��Q Y O `U E 'aI @ `O j o o 30 U .S , y cS we 3 . 3 a m, , v v @ a. 9 @ �— (,) (.-R 3 $ c co 'o .3 0 0 C c. 2 @I 05 co E 0 0 -.48 0 - 13 13 ‘, —-- j--,, 6. ce 4, 0, co O, '2 .2 .- 34 I\i 2 " a a 0 4 _ LO W N N I • .y m N o \\�JJ � YF 2 0 a3 d 0 w a> o_ u- 'w. b • a_ Ts Q ,U U y �I g 12 d N N d •'.• Zi air-5 N J Z d 2' J Z a d w ; l tZI Cm �. w uoi 2 a�� m �o o c d ' • C C 3 P -o C Lj DI a W 5 Q O U 0 w O c O , J 1 1Z c C C b c o a)` F c D a H . c OU O ✓✓��p o 0 o m 0 o m o p Z 3 1 c '^ 1— I- U U U H o H U U Io- 0.. COI- �- (a P m W 4 L O 2 O U U N Li) 1 o Ej o a a H o W i j o er `. y t o L' i �t Q O M O C U N N S d _rooC) c a rn m m C m E E o ` cilr UN2 2, r,.. F > '�n aCi 3 0 0 �� 6 • z >. cL m 2, c ! . � °� m 0 3 3 3 0 L � C Luu i M S A L a) aa)i N N C o ra E U U Y r0A .{ �-- 0' 1-- � rtoa N 0 o Y 3 tr o 'S z z t a-; 04 0 Page E-395 _ V IA • \--) -4\ U H • u. _ �� E' ai U H o cv o J Z Q of 6 Ei o o • of E U, 0 *0U N Q N L 0. -) O ,C 2 C @ N 7 �: N O' El V: O OI 0 0 E N (0 O O OC �? v E 1ff W E s_a a E 5- o a) ci >: �. cric , = co c co , �, U "- o'' a>i c �i O o v o �� m co wxn ai r vI E E m m I o ' ca > a� cLo o ? L Eo ~ of h cn a O�+ F.! C7 j4 Of o »r gi o ® b x Cl- zl c� v of z, 1 0..J y VI 1 g O 3 1 LO °' _ o C Cl) co is- t' S. w - C 0) O Tc N .y C a. C O to c� T. w � • -11 �} fZ z ,— h I- ca . t. a>i a)al i on U L V\ A\ z ,fl o a � w o U o 4., _, _(� L co U C O VJ N C Oo ..., N 'a E •y d — C O C `� (2 CO ° O U N W W _ t_ > a co E EE C O h „" C i i O O cow co (>r o �j _ �_ o 2 c U o 0 O 3 "- c E. 0. U 1— U u- U C) U co U O 0 li U U U ti 0 0 U II 'Ww w II E o " O U i 1. ONO W C (0 o M co v� d1 Oc 3 E a) Q � � V E a .6 X m t Eto Q W O O ti a co (6 X -C (tsC C t- - C �`z w � � r ...._CO 2 Q Q •'� m m n3 cxi 0 - m a E 3 y o E -7.7 I- a� t E Q m co m m aa; o • m D m U U • L s , a� m co W W ca E -0 : E m is .c] > .`c C >, U m • f=- v� Mcna .N>.____ 1° �° � � � z o o m co -� ' + L L C7 Y Y 2 Co. U Page E-396 ..1 t 1 v 1 ' W Z to 7f I Nto E N. H a O E OU 7 O U 7 0 a ._ OV 0 0 E O0 U d O G Q m a Co 7 E E' ° 0 0 E a? 0 0 C '+ p: o o v d' :3 E N ° of i° a) 0 cu E 'E o p ° t v a C o m' 1.6 , E ° 0 O_ ° ui `m o 3 a L O o o O > a ° o ai , 0 3 E O 8 0 "- @ .� ° o w -o @) 0 0 3 ON m (33� .o m o@ c n 0 iia- v O Y N G C 'C V N > a C 3 N Z• h ca E U U "6 >rC, N Y N "O -O N ti O N. O N (p a0j O V - - ,O U C C W "O d ti U U U N 'O -O N 7 O N N p p o N U -o J C.) E -o m m -o m E .0 E I— cC —E,- .:::: O O o m `c N C o ...... C ON U c9 N N N E N ali - OY Y C D J 0 0 `p `p O Q ` N c • y N p N N U U E U O • C a p O NE to z W d U < O Cu I-- - c F7 `c O'. U. > '> L N N m C _ • m �S a5 m U ° m E o Con o c no o a' m o U m = O 2 U W � L O (D -J > J -O `L b O N p U_ 45 > 6: w w 6 O E "- F- o ° ° 0 H o O O c H . U oct E C c 0 O C C C .O O O O I- Z- O O O N T O O N O O O O N 0 •'� O U H CC Z H U U J U H H it U H H H u. U c a u w w = W a t O Q O U U u w _ N N d t r W > -r) c° N 1 Orin O �+� C _ aK O U ` N U O O C C Q% N .C G 0 Qw � O O E O` N N C 40 'C N N 7 i U Y N (a Z W d w N U U N N N O W Y TO LL N IL N m N - .` N O ? LL. 41 O c0 _ H Ito M > as 4 N L O N -- N c0 co C /6 O U C L Y_ OO O .O au U O _I U U O Cr Q < O CO W - - H m III Page E-397 :., ; in Lip S.3:I", . , Hr ''� o E (-Li N J OI C 0! Vi H °U J J OI cI O P4 t C O' V @. �� O EI V! ,- M'ei C N W E ` ,_ ci Oi V:' y6 �I CI CI ��I O. V O I ul -O `' w' E]' V' L O• C .0 N • • c a .Z 0 Oi c O �: ° c' _o .0 U N N C O. V N c .I E . O ` c O O -00 N d� a) a 0 Y 0 YII c I 3 13 c I ! ! o. -0 to c .0 ,V it u i r ° cj al " •I°n� .m 'i a o g v u m u r r m; fn @ ° :' LI N NI E o N: c, N V c N U .C' 's U • -o' .c �- m r .c m O � -5 o m �� o Y 'O a. C! °� te! E J L liii0 m a Z -J W F .o ., nnnn n . CL a 2 c a) l C O ❑ N N N N o ..T. O .C C D C C .- c E c 0 E o = c c J t J c d r ° c ° O E r o o Y_ .c C o o C E O U� F o 0 0 o w o o Z WI .Z_' 0 OO U N .C CCC ❑ O N c 0 U J Z O U U a U U ❑ L O ca U O H H H U no H U a 4 w x rt a E O O U U y HiM N ° m Q K U -1- c Ni 'C C C a°, co a w p Y N E ?� 0 C 'E i 0 C C C 0 c a E V m J w ;o ° N c m 'p E N O o N = O o w = w d > r� @ O O O a2i 2 S 2 = E E o n m Y .c Y .c CD C' 0 m a`' = O m O Y • w o to 'S m m c -`o .fl c m E o �c C = T a>i -' Y u F- cq ri fn d U c-9 Q Q d H Y m O m a' ,- O o m ).- o m` em — O 2 O J = Page E-398 ! In V) Q 0 \_ ai & 2 w ® 8 : \ a ( # Ti o ( \ § \ ) F.-_-° _ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ E r \ j \ \ / / \ \ \ { O / 0 _• \ } / / § \ O \ } Ii • / - - mk tt y3 $ / ( § co Z / \ 0 ; \ \ « L. o o R - M ; \ } \ \ \ \ \ •,-1 0_ 2 Ia = m mo r I ,• \ 2- / / } / >-• § } y / \ \ \) \ / \ / op = \ � \ 0 0 Pi D » \ \ t8 , CO \ t m / m \\ / \ k < / � « [ ) / } } \ - § f - - } Oom O / ) I- / o J } » 3 f e 3 / CO \ \ H \ ; ic. , ( \ Ai )PS / o -- / \ � j LC) : i ! _ « & j3 CO _ ) \ . G = # ti2 \ tE ( \ i ( 131 . ; HL \ \ \ 2 ) 2 a° ` / A to a. o m \ } / j ) ) o ) \ Na)} \ 2 - \ \ -, - \ Page E-399 II r' I i — I - _--- - --- --- Ii _. • N WN X g OE E"i ' N,, N D 0 U) C U �i . I O' o: > Ci vi 0 t > o 0 O N O O °1 U _Ni O. U U: aj iUI J O �; G :-J m N' N 0 0 O Lo @ ° of I; >l E c 0) m a E! _c H 'I ° G NI N� C N' N a3' °' w='' N UOi >� o °. .o o E o m 1:51.115' 3 ° ° ° a m. m 0 O .�' •i o di EI o tz co 0I O E -o —�° > c U, aa))• a •i Yi ('' E - o ci .o°' > • •1 a) p. N U U� •; C > •, • OU (Cpl U .OI p, U • o C'.' O C CI O al O N O N •. a) E. e' O, C! .� , C,. -- Ui •,. •; o o `m CO�, c of V c`o E 5 �, i nc 7 -51 cl •i - m o a o. a o N c c OCR• 0 a III, i_ • C N I co C N -o N 0 ° h a,c. ZI o F; R .O 3� U :Ei E! Ei vi �i u m `m o ≥. i o ■■�.■■■ ■■ ■■■■RI CO O_ N y U@ 11 . 1 ~NOana) N ° j_o w _ a. D CB 4D ki L O C E a c a o O OO c N5 c co Co O .� 'e p N C C h U a.) a) o `co E o o m e m o 'O L U D _C a U U a. Th. d ° y ~O `C° > E c H H Q E O ° w o `) it o C9 >, c E 3 p U E Qm o c -o -o c U CJ U U O U U o O _ � m F-3 > - U F- U U LL J a U U )p m° FOO `a _".4.1 W X Y ccW J 2 2 J �f g o O U U in W ooa � . � y 5u2j N o W p aiM Cr) N c o Q to o O ,- aJ C J W O V COC a) N -_ O a) c Y CO .. C v Q I� I— D a) O O .N E a) > E C J N C CO O v 1 win Z Z c n Gon p as E m a) o E E •c -O N > S H d 7 a) v z O p 0 a. d O a a) v 'C o O N N O O L • � aM rn c m a o a a p s a - tW- V) Mv'ia ' z ° -`� 0 m O E o m` E .c ac N P C6— o m > F- U -' Y U C7 U 5- Q U) w in C.9. Page E-400 • d: ( » } E § Q : ; / _ \ E ) \ - via ) , / % \ ui c \ \ r • j \ C \ / \ \ ) ) > ) § 2 E , E Q L « E E { E co \ \ ` } / / a : _ ; » [ % ` g L M ( 'c a ® ) t - \ ( e a \ \ ) / \ { \ c - - \ & \ ) ) \ ZS — ! , • { y m G < ( § \ � \ \ ) \ } A < CO \ / \ \ 0 t « \ I — } is- • ] # = a0 45 4,7 — _ / _ / / , o I 78 E , \ \ \ eo \ ) \ \ \ \ Q 2 \ \ CD \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ts E % & / 7 \ _ E O \ \ o ® o / C \ \ c \ ,-..- >. 3 \ 0 .0 3 Z 2 \ < \ L I— L H H I— H L H fil g � « ( I k G DOO a. 5 ` / ct 8A $ ! E ® ( k �_IM \ C f 7 § / 2 / \ / ,_ ® 2u.,a \ \ \ } { } \'Cwt. ) e \ / ( \ \ - j 32@ > CO / / ( \ / / E k ( ® C ® & Aan � ) \ } t \ 0 2 s / < — - ( « t A 3 O ) g / Page E-401 I .• . 3 rq (.1-) } , m ! / , k k k Z [ _ \ ) { cii } [ 0 ® ( \ E / ) f \ § _ ( } } _ j / \ '-',a5 \ } ( u 7 } } \ \ ) } G \ { / o ^ k ) \ ) � ( \ \ \ \ / @ •\ ) 7 \ \ es _ . { I 2 \ , 2 In { ) \ 3 ° § / « / J . F. 2 ( � � u < / / ) \ 0 Ei RI z ± / z a D G(f' O -G.c 0 $ Cr) ) ) [� r. § * \ / / 0 j •-• : 0ti! 0 { L e » % r { a F- O O - 0 0 \ / F- o J 0 J O r o e \ is \ ) Ij - ca / k ,) \ \ ( \ / \ / / \ \ \ / \ a { t » \ \ ` \ { \ / } { k ) S ` Ra * , q / ) nom - 0 « / C ) 0 E z z / - 4 gePa E-402 Meeting Minutes NORTH 1-25 °NI • Technical Advisory Committee EIS November 8, 2007 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM ntormation cooperation transportation Page 1 of 3 MEETING DATE: November 8, 2007 LOCATION: Southwest Weld County Services Complex ATTENDEES: See Sign In Sheet PREPARER: PRACO—Jessica Woolery SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION 1. WATER QUALITY A. Alex Pulley and Laura Archerd (FHU) provided a summary of the water quality analysis process and impacts that are addressed in the Draft EIS. 1. Water Quality and Roads—An overview of what water resources are analyzed to determine water quality and the regulatory acts that mandate analysis. 2. Existing Conditions in Study Area—Overview of the six watersheds in the study area, existing water conditions, water quality and impervious services. 3. Water Quality Impact Analysis—Overview of measurement processes and results of the water quality impact analysis. • • Gene Putman— I would like to see the numbers with the Driscoll Model Results in the presentation. The word "more"can be misleading and is open to interpretation.A range of numbers would be beneficial. 4. Water Quality Mitigation—Overview of best management practices and probable location to implement best management practices. • Bob Garcia—Water quality impacts are a huge monitoring issue not only for our project, but for all CDOT projects. • G. Putman— It is an issue that all planners in Colorado are dealing with. Compared to many of the development projects across the study area and the state, these impacts are rather small. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE A. Shonna Sam (CB) presented an overview of the Environmental Justice analysis, regulatory acts, outreach and impacts that are being addressed in the Draft EIS. 1. Input Received from Specialize Outreach • Q: James Longsdorf—Were there any components of Package A or Package B that helped connect people to their community facilities? A: S. Sam—Those components are identified in Pages 8 and 9 of the handout. 2. Impacts by Alternative • Q: Bill Haas—How can the same component benefit and impact people in a certain place at the same time? A: S. Sam—The construction phase will provide the most impacts, however people in these specific areas will be the first to benefit after completion. • • Q: B. Garcia—Do regulations require that we identify each community by name? I am concerned about the privacy of people in these areas. A: Gina McAfee—We do name them in order to fully disclose the impacts by NEPA standards. Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-403 Meeting Minutes NORTH I--25gill Technical Advisory Committee EIS • November 8, 2007 1:3Page 3o 3:00 PM information cooperation. transportation. of • Q: G. Putman— In regards to the map that shows the impacts in Longmont, isn't that area where there is already the BNSF line? How can Package A impact a community that already has existing conditions? A: G. McAfee—You are correct. There are impacts based on the increased frequency of rail traffic and the addition of a second track. G. Putman— I would like to see detailed info regarding freight versus commuter rail in terms of frequency, noise, exposure time, etc. Mark Jackson— Fort Collins averages eight freight trains a day. • Q: J. Longsdorf—How do the alternatives improve emergency response time? A: S. Sam—The alternatives decrease congestion and improve the Level of Service in turn improving response time. • Q: B. Haas— I notice that Package B has no extra impacts. Will no mitigation be necessary with Package B, but necessary with Package A? A: There will be impacts with Package B, however they are the same as the No Action. Existing conditions will become more severe. • Q: Kathleen Bracke—Will Mountain Range Shadows get no additional mitigation with Package B? A: Tom Anzia—No. If we implement Package B the I-25 EIS alignment will go around Mountain Range Shadows to avoid any additional impacts by widening the highway. • There will be mitigation, but that falls under noise not EJ. ▪ Q: K. Bracke— I don't see any information regarding the benefits that Package A and the commuter rail will present to EJ communities. Doesn't the rail component provide lots of benefits? A: G. McAfee— It does. ▪ Q: J. Longsdorf—We weren't counting No Action in the water resources presentation, but with No Action in EJ will CDOT do mitigation or would CDOT walk away and leave conditions as they are? A: G. McAfee—With No Action, CDOT will maintain operation levels. CDOT will be replacing some bridges and other such structures that need it. Some of this maintenance will also be done by the local entities. • Q: B. Haas—If No Action is used then would we have to do separate Environmental Assessments for spot work? A: T.Anzia-Yes. • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-404 Meeting Minutes NORTH I-25 MIR Technical Advisory Committee November 8, 2007 EIS 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM information cooperation transportation Page 3 of 3 3. NI25EIS—The Next Steps A. Gina McAfee with Carter-Burgess gave an overview of the next steps in the EIS process including the current project status, the ongoing collaborative stakeholder process, public comment period and the upcoming TAC meeting schedule. 1. Reviewing NEPA Documents • Q: B. Garcia—Since we already got approval of Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, during the scoping process, does it lead all of the other chapters? A: T. Anzia—We are already developing a log of issues that will be addressed in the Final EIS. If there are any significant changes to Purpose and Need they would be added to this list. • A: D. Baskett—After reviewing the US 36 EIS recently I advise the entities to brief their staff internally to get ready for the review. Work with other entities that may have a bigger concern for a specific item to take that lead so you can focus on items that are of the largest concern to your communities.Ask the project team for a training session on how comments are considered to ensure you provide constructive comments. These things will be beneficial to the process and keep it moving along in a timely manner. NEXT TAC MEETING: THURSDAY,JANUARY 10,2008 • 3:30 P.M. - 5:00 PM SW Weld County Services Complex • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-405 q \ . 7 E co k 2 cc f ( E 2 ` f > 7 $ ] # ° ) — k « § o - CO ■ w 2 ( § / k ) E E ` ) - ` @ « > ® § ) / k ) ) to 2 2 � 2 z IS k e % ( a ; , ' e $ k © t ) .6 2 6, § k I k k E i 2 t 7 xi k t e 7 \ k E k | I k s a § a G 3 k k \ 3 2 2 2 )_ k Z § I / } I f 2 4 4. C E k 0 f ! to f a � � 2 ! C C (U CL Ua D \0 a. a z 2 z / / ) R • c7). . k f -a ) \ A k a n C m / E § a / 2 ] /a 3@ k > M ) k & S 4.4 E i t a 1- » ; E I k 7 E § \ ) E ! ae \ \ SAAC [ S } ) A / $ } QS / f 2 iii X E k _,..z. X 0 f7co Ciii . . . 2 �� 2 ` k § co > sa � § - )TO 7 ) & 2 # § \\ � } t E co \ CO co 0 E CO - c m k / / J / \ a 2, - � z � 2 , i- 2 a § f 2 k a J ) \ 2 ) ) c k f | 1--- --j - 2� --- I Page E-406 • c ., • ' w .e - • , ; ' \ k k { ; E ) e 0 to 2 - / / E t g • § § 8 / ) E 8 / $ LA g | $ 1 ® / 1 k § g \ 0 k E k } ] ! Ts § q $ \ . % , c & ' 9 $ © I k k 2 k .c 3 V = % § { g g k K g / o c k k $ _ 4 7 c 2 { 0 § _ -I 2 E _ m ■ 2 % t a E § # J 2 , » f ) _b a j O - ) 2 % f ) < — Cu m f 3 2 E A 0 D ) ® 7 , Cu, I ) 2 2 � 0 < k ~. \ k ) 2 } ) § — § 5 : ` # o a e k , # Ea, j o ) ) m O cm ck ) k }utc 0 44 e O E ; R 5 k 14.- 0 k } \ i e. 0 } g 4 0 k c o w re z w 0 0 O 3 o )2 / « o w } r 2 S )la r A J Q....) k 0 . - . . . , Se 2 § OW . , No _ 6 , a 2a® 8 & . - t a § _ $ — m E © f = $ 2 t a ( § 05V0 ; & ) 2 \ k 05 ) i \ TD- } ) k \ \ k I- z ii me. k 0 0 _i § 0 0 $ k JIk 2 2 } 3 ° I f Page E-407 en v) S NI UD ` E o _ § ( / \ o w a § 7 - 2 E . - ! r - , ) g k k § § J &Ts t k g \ k / / t 7 m t § _ 2 t 7 § } C ca c / v E / 1 i Se$ k ) t k \ ea / } \ \ \ It a B } k c ( f a t k fo $ 0. \ - $ 0 7:2 ) ! @ \ ) & e �} \ m f / \ \ /k )� o ® z c xe } o a. C m k } ca — % 0 7 § ; as \ ii / /\� \ c } / f Z o > c 2 2 2 j § ■ , f f .c » / Il ( - 0 f t % 2 $ o ] z o o z, o z, k o J 0 \ } k / § A } } f • / \ . ( a. .1� \ 2 en . _ cc 25 . SR8a mix E c c 2 �wo • 2 C / • } k� � :12— \ \ O \ CO\ \ C w ) z c to to • } { $ f $ \ ) & z §%/ 0 0 } 0 ) \ ` i \ \.4e. 0% > 1 e— / I | ��© I {—'�\ : � \ Page E-408 • : } In eNI V) } / k a 44 J m ) \ 0 to \ ci ul 8 V o 0 5 R j \ . 6 ( § _ j 7 i ` ° d ' ' f c as \ k # k C k \ \ k $ ) k ) f \ 05 2 8 ■ ° - @ { @ ® E k e k k .(3 k a 2 ) 9 ( ) c c - ._ ) - © » ( Cl ) } = / 0 \ k \ ) / a E .512 \ \ / \ \ \ / li o k I Cu ) ) ) ) k o 6 . c / o { ) 2 a \ ( e a \ co 2 y Z. § - c § A : )2 k fG ) o oc § f / G . 00 � � e o \ & { \ 228 / k t mom # § .c f & & « - ; ! - 43 f e o o = u u w J � o a R » » 3 J a ] / I J \ ' \ . 2 i N & , 8 ® . . • . k § \ k � k9522 Cu k + / a s N $ , ( b � . ou $ .4a' a § a ( .§ q . s c . € 0 U so� � � � � 2 c $ ) # \ 2 ) k j } .4 / 2 k k2 § § � al / C w 4 ) ) \ \ / co / � © k I �\ \ � Page E-409 » • n (.1) . • E ` E E 8 ® co 2 z � ` ] 2 ` § k k ) / �� k k J $ ` a \ © \ [ 7 ai $ CO 7 I- +o Co k « C $ k k e . ] EE ) ) w 2 E / ' § \ $ ) % 2 � � ® e = 7 § 8 ` e k tea$ 1.5. © i E - , ` ' 2 / �i. / k ` ) / f ( k § ) a M . 4 $ o & E E \ k k E k k } 1 $ % § 2 d ) f 2 § i 8.Ili to \ .2 # 7 a � • 0- � � f } O. } 7 » o 7 / ; # a) a ) P $ $ i ] a 2 c / } ) 7 o � { k k / ( il ; § § 7 k § f k.-- 0 / J� o } o 0 8 / o o 3 a. 0 o i ) ) � _ d i $ , % -j 0 ' z ' . t 'Co§§ §k CO 4 k�/2 9 $ � I & E 6 k ■ l- 0 c o ) 0 f a) g i t . Es ` -- ° 2a- 715, § et $ 2 2 { $ e - - S CL ) f d & u>; • rz Co n. / . 7 » E iiiE . § 2 [ ( \ 14e 1. I \ \ \ A Page E-410 • ` i q } 8 k _ E ! vi § \ c co ; E 2 k \ \ \ E 7 / \ \ E ! / ce / a 7 ( k 8 / 9 k % \ a E g H Egt § \ / \ V o t 3 7 e co t ) 7 f ) E 11 ! 2 g t ) % a , k m » a § ) § � 2 a § 2 + k © k # f ) ' 2 e t ) t J § \ k i ) •k k ) } / k } \ \ # / 7 k J 2 / { ± I / — / ) 97. S ° 0 . _ . - i z _ ) & a ) \ E 4. C ® f re \ / ae T. > k \ ) ( ) 0 \ � � E m to ) / I— W a -2 a) } } a / \ \\k \ } } CO / / - ( t § \ / H 4.k § ■ a. v ` � ` , , � - . § 0 � � , visa k §$ ° § a t f 2 . A i / tat 2 \ � ■ � e � f \ ) c § k $ a—CD G2 $ \ f k / = E ; 0k § & k & X ce ce , Er m c A A m 2 Co k § ° ° / 0 k r22da 3.-, / / 2 9 „,= t @ ! 2 E f r E & ; - . vk � \ �� \ � .\\ � � Page E-411 , } / . q ! H i E Cl, to q ; \ Q E w E § f ; .60 ) •• . 8 8 ) 2 ] $ ; / / E / 1:3 ) k § g # « § k § ] L k k 1 k } $ k s § / k d e k 5 _ $ 2 k ` J ` 2 R E t E ° \ / § ) k % \ 7 f \ ° I , , f f ` R I f k 2 } J / f \ —I I § \ 0 f } ) < �) < \ 2 k / k 2 5 R �} co z a. a. )• § § ciN k i k k j o t a t 2 \ f I [ 5 \ e 2 % o o ° e / § § / 7 f 4.6 \ § / ` / k / / § \ . \at � HZ § 0. 0 . . . . §^ a '01 ■ 28# ■ cc;ii CO _ c ) f § 5 / 228 k R 2 & a / / w -f- § t 2g. 7 Eat � C ( \ « J 4 i } $ 2 k ) e 7 0 � zAto � ` _ • \ � ( re if \ z �� ] � -1—L— Page E-4 S _ NW z° E ' V 03'® • , c• �� He N t+.O 0C -! E 4 Ie :: I iW1 I I i to I tL ILL U ? ] C I 14 5 • '1 N I I I 8 Ej Le tc 3 h ' O CCt b C ! 0 3 g.,J J 2 0 U- o • .... .i , r x 1 i . j ,,L. O a 1 V en• o m < cif• ca o I O V t 6 W 9 .. .t N m t :3 fri lJ m �z MIL ...DJp .I L E t j ;- ez 0 0 oA Page E-413 \ / NORTH I-25 FRONT RANGE EIS • Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Purpose: Sopping Meeting with the Corps of Engineers Date Held: January 13, 2004 Location: FHWA Attendees: FHWA, FTA, CDOT and consultants for numerous corridor projects Copies: Carol Parr, Stan Elmquist, Dave Martinez, Bob Garcia, Tom Anzia, Bob Felsburg, Gina McAfee, Wendy Wallach, Kim Gambrill, Jeanette Lostracco, Laura Backus, Mary Powell, File#071609.300 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Tim Carey began the meeting. The Corps is the lead agency for two EISs for water and • they are cooperating agency for the Windy Gap Firming Project. They are running out of staff and will not be able to come to individual corridor meeting. They have prepared a scoping letter that can be used for all Colorado projects authorized by the Littleton office. It is attached. 2. The Corps always has some type of federal action (404)associated with transportation projects, so they have to prepare a NEPA document. 3. The Corps is required to comply with the ESA and NH PA. 4. We should provide the Corps with a copy of our purpose and need statement so they can review it. Good examples are Guanella Pass, US 285 (first project), and I-25 South. 5. The Corps requires that an alternative be developed with no impact to Waters of the U.S. (This alternative may be found not practicable.) This is for EAs and EISs. 6. The Corps needs to be involved in the screening of alternatives. We can provide a description of alternatives, screening criteria and initial results in written form or in a meeting. On design/build contracts, the design and impacts are not nailed down, so the Corps does not like them. On larger projects, the Corps likes to issue a permit for the corridor and then issue a permit amendment as needed. Disadvantages of this could be: • Wetlands may have changed. • A greater level of design may be needed during the EIS. • Page E-414 • Meeting Minutes—North 1-25 EIS_Corps of Engineers Scoping Meeting January 13,2004 page 2 The Corps could put a condition in the permit that before the last phase of the project, you would reassess the wetland conditions. Or you proceed with what was authorized in the permit regardless of what has changed (unless it is the design—and you need to get a permit amendment for that). The Corps will not do separate permits for each phase. The level of design is up to CDOT to determine what level of risk they are willing to accept. You will need to do enough to determine bridge piers, retaining walls. US 285 was a good example. 7. The Corps looks at: • Have you avoided as much as you can • Have you minimized impacts Only after these have been satisfied can you look at compensatory mitigation. 8. We must submit a complete mitigation plan for the requirements of RGL 02-2. It is okay to have phased mitigation. 9. The Corps would like to see a 404 permit application at the time of the FEIS, as long as they have been involved and EPA has been involved. The Corps would like to see the merged process. • 10. On 1-70, a FTA person said that commuter rail on 1-70 would not be funded. If that is the case,why was rail still a reasonable alternative? 11. The Corps will still do field reviews to verify delineations. 12. The Corps recommends a meeting with them and EPA (Deb and Glen Rodriguez) to discuss purpose and need and alternatives. Before the meeting,the Corps would like to see draft purpose and need and alternatives with screening criteria. Subsequent meetings would be needed just prior to the time that alternatives are screened. 13. For wetland delineations, is it okay to just map wetlands and then do a delineation at the time the preferred alternative is chosen? Tim Carey said it is okay to do the delineation just prior to permit application. From Ron's perspective, you need to delineate wetlands partway through the process. 1-70 used color infrared photography with some ground truthing, looking at vegetation and hydrology. 14. The Corps is moving away from mitigation on an acreage basis, but focusing on functional replacement. The Corps is going to use the Summit County methodology used by the Sacramento District. Tim has been working with Kris Meiring to refine this. By the end of 2004 the Corp will have a functional assessment methodology they will be using for individual permits. • ]: _Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Corps Scoping 011304j.doc Page E-415 General Scoping Comments •' for Transportation Projects Denver Regulatory Office U.S.Army Corps of Engineers These scoping comments address critical issues that need to be addressed in the Section 404 permit evaluation process. While some of these issues may be addressed through scoping comments provided by other Federal agencies,I've also included them,since we must ensure our permit complies with the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. I. T&E species(not meant to be all inclusive,just the biggies): Preble's meadow jumping mouse: A. Does a"suitable habitat determination"need to be done for Preble's(project located in an area where a suitable habitat determination is required)? B. If your project is located in a suitable habitat area for Preble's,has a trapping survey been done and approved by the USFWS? C. Is your project located in designated critical habitat for Preble's? Ute ladies'tress orchid and Colorado butterfly plant:Is your project located in an area • where a plant survey is required? If so,has a survey been done and approved by the USFWS? Bald Eagle:Are there any eagle nests or roost trees in the vicinity of the project? II. Historic Properties&Cultural Resources: A. Are you aware of any cultural or historic resources on-site? Are there any features or structures on the property that may be eligible for listing on the National Register(bridges,barns, houses,railroad embankments,irrigation ditches,etc.,that are older than 50 years)? B. Is your project located in a National Historic Landmark District? Central City,Black Hawk,Georgetown, Silver Plume,and Morrison,as well as other areas,are so designated. III. 404(b)(I)Guidelines(Guidelines): Protect Purpose and Need: A. Under the Guidelines,the Corps must determine"basic"and"overall"project purposes. The"basic"project purpose is used to determine if the project is water dependant (Non-water dependant projects are presumed to have less damaging,to the aquatic ecosystem, alternatives). "Overall"project purpose is used to screen alternatives,with selection of the least damaging,to the aquatic ecosystem,practicable alternative required(unless there are other significant adverse environmental consequences). •� Page E-416 • 2 B. Is your initial project purpose too narrowly or broadly defined? Broad definitions require too many alternatives to be analyzed. Narrow definitions eliminate alternatives that could truly meet your purpose and need. C. Have you sufficiently demonstrated a public need for the project? Alternatives: A. If the discharge involves a special aquatic site(wetlands,mudflats,pool&riffle complexes),are sufficient alternatives presented to clearly select the least damaging,to the aquatic ecosystem, alternative that meets the"overall"project purpose? B. Have you considered any off-site alternatives? If not,why?(For projects with large- scale impacts,the Corps must consider off-site alternatives. Just because you now have a legal interest in the land(e.g.,right-of-way already purchased),or have an option to purchase one, doesn't mean that off-site alternatives can't be considered.) C. Prior to receiving a permit,you must provide an alternative analysis. The analysis should provide at least 3 alternatives;no build;build; and build with total avoidance of impacts to waters of the U.S. The number of acceptable alternatives varies with the size of the project and value of the aquatic resources to be impacted. • D. We must screen alternatives based on the following criteria: We can only issue a permit for the practicable alternative that has the least adverse affect on the aquatic ecosystem,so long as there are not other significant adverse environmental consequences. Practicable means capable of being done after taking into consideration cost,existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. E. Since many transportation projects have an EA or EIS prepared under the auspices of the Federal Highway Administration,is the preferred alternative presented in the EA or EIS the least damaging to the aquatic ecosystem? Is the Purpose and Need correctly defined for our purposes,so as not to eliminate alternatives that would meet our definition of overall project purpose? Avoidance,Minimization&Compensatory Mitigation: A. The applicant must demonstrate,and we must verify,that you have avoided and minimized impacts to aquatic resources to the maximum practical extent. This must occur prior to any consideration of compensatory mitigation(compensatory mitigation is necessary to offset unavoidable impacts,after minimizing these impacts). B. Buffers can be both a form of minimization and compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation includes creation,restoration,enhancement and/or preservation used to offset unavoidable impacts. Buffer areas created merely by moving development areas further away from aquatic resources are considered a form of minimizing impacts. If a buffer area is enhanced,through the planting of native vegetation,shrubs,frees,etc.,this enhancement may be counted as compensatory mitigation. • Page E-417 3 C. How will your proposed compensatory mitigation,as well as remaining aquatic resources,be protected in the future? What's the best method available for protection(deed restriction,conservation easement,fee title transfer of land)? D. You will be required to submit a complete mitigation plan(meeting the mitigation plan requirements of the Mitigation Regulatory Guidance Letter[RGL 02-2]). We must receive this before a permit can be issued. This is necessary to insure compliance with the RGL 02-2 and the 404(6)(1)Guidelines. Why? (RGL 02-2)"This guidance applies to all compensatory mitigation proposals associated with permit applications(emphasis added)submitted for approval after this date (December 24,2002)." Compliance with the RGL must be determined prior to permit issuance. (1990 Corps/EPA Mitigation MOA)"If the mitigation plan necessary to ensure compliance with the Guidelines is not reasonably implementable or enforceable,the permit shall be denied." We can't make this determination without a mitigation plan. IV. Special Aquatic Resources: A. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service has classified fens as Resource Category 1. What this means is that they consider impacts to fens non-mitigatable. The only methods that might be •suitable for fen impact mitigation,within'our area of Colorado,are restoration of a degraded fen or purchase of mitigation credits from the Warm Springs Mitigation Bank B. For activities that may qualify,with project modifications,for authorization by a Nationwide Permit,certain aquatic sites or resources that may require special consideration are fens,springs,important spawning areas,Critical Resource Waters,Wild Trout Waters and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Page E-418 State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '. PO Region 4-Loveland Residency .,..._._._..... 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland.CO 50537-8885 or"w.M,..Torr fl1PO TATiox January 21,2004 Tim Carey U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Tri-Lakes Project Office 9307 S.Platte Canyon Road Littleton,CO 80128 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr.Carey: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • 1. Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, ?ad Mfinibki David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N.1-25 Front Range EIS • cc: Project File Page E-419 " Y��(✓N(1_ � - Vegier Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration j Region VIII Colorado Division U.S. Department 216 16th Street Mail,Suite 650 555 Zang Street,Suite 250 of Transportation Denver,CO 80202 Lakewood,CO 80228 • (303)844-3242 (303)969-6730 February 5, 2004 �}�7 Mr. Timothy T. Carey MAR Chief, Denver Regulatory Office Omaha District U.S.Army Corps of Engineers FELSBURG, HDLT& ULLEVIG 9307 South Wadsworth Littleton, Colorado 80128-6901 Subject: North I-25 Front Range)CIS Cooperating Agency and NEPA Merger Agreement Dear Mr. Carey: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(ETA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)Region 4, are initiating an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) addressing highway and transit improvements generally along the I-25 corridor from Denver to north of Fort Collins. The transportation improvements will most likely require a Section 404 permit and because of your agency's legal jurisdiction over • these permits we are requesting that you be a cooperating agency for this EIS. In addition,we would like to request your involvement in merging the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)process and the 404 permitting process for this project. We think this is warranted because of the extent of drainages and water resources that dissect this project area. Your agency's involvement should entail those areas under its jurisdiction and no direct writing or analysis will be necessary for the document's preparation. The following are activities we will take to maximize interagency cooperation: 1. Invite you to coordination meetings. 2. Consult with you on any relevant technical studies that will be required for the project. 3. Organize joint field reviews with you. 4. Provide you with project information, including study results. 5. Notify you of joint public involvement and public hearing process. 6. Encourage your agency to use the above documents to express your views on subjects within your jurisdiction or expertise 7. Include information in the project environmental documents that cooperating agencies need to carry out their NEPA responsibilities and any other requirements regarding jurisdictional approvals. • Page E-420 Mr.:rimothy"1.Carey 1, January 22,2004 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers page 2 • You have the right to expect that the EIS will enable you to carry out your jurisdictional responsibilities. Likewise you have the obligation to tell us if, at any point in the process, your needs are not being met. We expect that at the end of the process the EIS will satisfy your NEPA and Clean Water Act requirements including those related to project alternatives, environmental consequences and mitigation. We expect the permit application to proceed concurrently with the EIS approval process. Further,we intend to utilize the EIS and our subsequent decision making documents(ROD) as the basis for your issuing a Clean Water Act permit. We look forward to your response to this request and your role as a cooperating agency on this project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this EIS,please contact Jean Wallace(FHWA) at(303)969-6730 extension 382 or John Dow(FTA) at(303) 844-4266. Sincerely in your i Illyce . 0 . a dleton Division A trator Regional Administrator cc: Mr.Bob Garcia,CDOT Mr.Dave Martinez,CDOT • Ms. Carol Parr,CDOT Mr. Stanley Elmquist,CDOT Mr. Tom Anzia,FHU Ms. Gina McAfee,Carter and Burgess Mr. John Dow,ETA Ms.Jean Wallace,FHWA File LTransportatlon1071609.400\manage\corr\agency\Carey 160122041.doc • Page E-421 • t¢z 7,c ;sNT of a DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT • DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BLVD LITTLETON,CO 80128-6901 \. pl \« "i", March 5, 2004 Mr.William C. Jones Division Administrator U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Colorado Federal Aid Division 555 Zang Street, Room 250 Lakewood,Colorado 80228-1040 Mr. Lee O. Waddleton Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration Region 8 216 Sixteenth Street, Suite 650 Denver,Colorado 80202-5120 RE: Permit Application number 200480110 I-25 North Corridor EIS;Adams,Weld,and Larimer Counties,Colorado Dear Mr.Jones and Mr.Waddleton: I am writing this letter in response to your correspondence dated February 5,2004,received in • this office on March 4,2004,regarding the above referenced project. In your letter you requested that the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(COE)participate as a Cooperating Agency during preparation of the subject EIS. Please note that this project has been assigned permit application number 200480110 and should be referenced as such in all future correspondence. The COE accepts your invitation to participate as a Cooperating Agency. Our involvement will include providing document review and input concerning potential impacts to waters of the United States subject to COE jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition,we will work with your agency and the Colorado Department of Transportation to merge the NEPA/Section 404 process as much as possible. This effort will include providing assistance in developing the Purpose and Need statement,as well as evaluating and assessing alternatives relative to the Section 404(b)(1)Guidelines. As requested in my letter dated February 6, 2004,to Mr.David Martinez of the Colorado Department of Transportation,the first step in the NEPA/Section 404 merger process will be our review of a draft Purpose and Need statement. Ms.Margaret Langworthy will serve as the primary point of contact. If you need to reach either of us by telephone,our number is 303-979-4120. Our e-mail addresses are timothy.t.carev&ausace.army.mil and margaret.k.langworthyQusace.army.mil. Sincerely, Ti T. ey Chief,Denver Regulato e • CF: Kathryn Schenk,CENWO-OD-R Page E-422 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETINGMINUTES n iri,bon 1,,1(,,i)i, Y.;i 101 CORPS OF ENGINEERS COORDINATION MEETING (REVISED) MEETING DATE: April 21, 2004 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers FHWA: Mike Vanderhoof, Jean Wallace Corps: Margaret Langworthy ATTENDEES: CDOT: Carol Parr, Dave Martinez, Pete Graham FTA: John Dow C&B: Gina McAfee EPA: Sarah Fowler PREPARER: Carter=Burgess Gina McAfee • Attendees, Chris Primus, Laura Backus, Wendy Wallach, COPIES: Kim Gambrill, Rebecca Pierce, ZafarAlikhan, Tim Carey, Beth Chase, Holly Miller, Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. The Corps number for this project is 2004-80110. 2. Gina gave a brief update to the project and a summ ary of scoping impact. Margaret asked why traffic volumes have increased. This is likely due to increases in population and employment in the study area. The NF R household survey found that 1-25 is used for local trips but also that not much traffic goes all the way from Fort Collins to Denver. Trips are often dispersed. 3. Gina gave a summary of agency scoping input. The functional evaluation of wetlands is being developed by Scott Franklin. Something in between the Florida procedure and a Summit County procedure is likely. They would like to capture some of the biological functions. When we get ready to do our wetland delineation, we should c heck with Scott Franklin, to see if we need to include functional evaluations in our delineations. 4. In the permitting process,we should show both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The Corps will be evaluating indirect impacts to all wetlands and will want to review mitigation for all wetlands. Per Executive Order requirements, m itigation for all wetlands will be provided. All permit applications should now show both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetl ands. • Federal Higlnvay Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-423 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES inirm:un;n tu.rperdtirri Vmr>;rurt;irwn Corps of Engineers Coordination Meeting April21, 2004 2of2 5. Tom described the initial statement of purpose and need, including data to support th e needs. Tim Carey wanted us to be aware of the recent COOT guidance. When we develop an alternative,we need to eval uate whether or not that alternative meets purpose and need. We need to quantify the needs and the goals to respond to th ese needs. Will we be improving the existing condition? Gina said that we may be able to measure some of these, but some we may not. 6. Margaret feels that the evaluation criteria we are showing dem onstrate a very logical approach. 7. Margaret thinks the overall approach sounds good—we seem to be out in front. 8. There will be a meeting this afternoon to clarify expectations from the Corps. An attorney will be coming (Skip Spensley). 9. The 404(b)(1)guidelines from EPA provide a better description of practicability. • 10. In June we plan to have a revision of our purpose and need,with data to support the needs and(for some of the needs)possible measurements of the needs. 11. Should AASHTO standards be referenced in our purpose and need? Saying"in accordance with appropriate standards..." 12. Alternatives will be dropped out for reasons other than whether or not an alternative responds to purpose and need. 13. Gina described the phased data collecti on plan. 14. In June we should send the revised purpose and ne ed to Margaret. We will meet to discuss the results of initial and conceptual alternatives screening at one time. We need to involve Sarah Fowler at all of these points as well. 15. The No-Action Alternative can suffice as the alternative that avoids im pact to wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Another option is the Congestion Management Alternative. 16. Sarah reminded us of the St. George Smart Growth analysis. We may want to add some of this to our Congestion Management Alternative. 7:LTransportation\071609.400y manage\mtgAminutes\Corps Coard REV 042104j.doc • Page E-424 • NORTH 1-25 EIS igiU'QLtlfll' r;U01�.;ii'J a;+ I!J'i>III tl'i.d:IJI! l MEETING MINUTES Corps of Engineers Coordination MEETING DATE: June 14, 2004 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers Offices CDOT: Stan Elmquist FHWA: Mike Vanderhoof ATTENDEES: Corps of Engineers: Margaret Langworthy C&B: Gina McAfee, Laura Backus FHU: TomAnzia EPA: Sarah Fowler PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Tim Carey, Carol Parr, Jean Wallace, Holly Miller, John Dow, Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina and Tom provided an update to project activities. We invited Sarah Fowler to the EPA meeting. 2. Margaret likes our criteria and process for Level I screening. This demonstrates that we used the Corps criteria and it is visual. 3. Regarding the evaluation criteria, we might want to look at people movement not just vehicle movement. 4. Tom described the comments received on purpose and need relative to the ordering of the needs. 5. The measure of improving accessibility...is confusing. Should this be"Improve accessibility of?" Could it be"Improve transportation access options?" 6. The need which is stated as continued growth pressure really consists of two issues: ► Land use and development is proceeding at a very high rate. ► The encroaching development restricts future transportation uses. 7. There is real interest in this corridor in rail transit. • 8. Why are there more accidents in certain segments? There are a couple of super elevation problems; the speed is an issue, the vehicle mix is an issue. Page E-425 NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES • Corps of Engineers Coordination Meeting June 14, 2004 2of2 9. The service life of infrastructure can be increased by replacement or maintenance. 10. We may be failing all heavy rail alternatives. 11. Are we considering a guided bus type technology? 1-70 West is seriously considering this, so it can go off system as needed, rather than requiring a transfer. 12. Margaret thinks the Level II evaluation criteria are okay—certainly wetlands, endangered species and historic properties would make sense and the final three are community or agency concerns. 13. For"smart growth"we should make sure we disclose the benefits of this in the EIS. 14. Tim will be likely be looking for a threshold. It is too early for this corridor. 15. We will meet again: • When we have some data collected. • • When we have some preliminary screening results (from Level II). J:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Corps Coord_614041doc • Page E-426 NORTH 1-25 EIS // MEETING MINUTES information cooperation. transportation. Discuss Issues with the Corps of Engineers MEETING DATE: December 8, 2004 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers EPA: Sarah Fowler COE: Margaret Langworthy ATTENDEES: FHWA: Jean Wallace, Mike Vanderhoof CDOT: Dave Martinez, Pete Graham FHU: Tom Anzia, Gregg Mugele Carter and Burgess: Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter:Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Wendy Wallach, Holly Miller, Carol Parr, Dave Beckhouse, COPIES: Alison Deans-Michael, Julie Morrison, Craig Gaskill, Bob Garcia, Stanley Elmquist, Pete Graham, Dave Martinez, Becky Noe, • C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. One comment on purpose and need is that the terminology of generally "decreasing congestion" is preferred over increasing capacity. For purpose and need, Margaret thinks we need thresholds. Mike indicated that the merger agreement commits to quantifications where possible. The screening criteria are really thresholds. 2. Gina, Jean and Tom described the Level 2 alternatives. Margaret asked for clarification about HOT lanes. Sarah asked if limited access lanes could be HOV—or could they have a different speed limit? For additional lanes (alternative C)—this should be a six to eight lanes total. Margaret is concerned that the new arterial roads will stimulate growth and will have a greater impact on the environment. 3. Mike asked for a clarification of where we are in the process. We have completed Level 1 screening and still need to get official concurrence on purpose and need. We will be adding more data to purpose and need, like travel patterns, most recent travel projections, origin and destinations, etc. The merger agreement says that we cannot use purpose and need to screen alternatives until the Corps concurs with our purpose and need. The merger agreement also says that • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-427 NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. • Discuss Issues with the Corps of Engineers December 8, 2004 2 of 2 we request concurrence from the Corps on an actual draft Purpose and Need chapter. Margaret is expecting more detail like we have a safety problem because there is a curve in this location. Mike indicated the merger agreement requires concurrence on purpose and need, alternatives, preferred alternative and mitigation. Before getting Corps concurrence on purpose and need, we can screen alternatives based on practicability and environmental factors. We should continue to develop purpose and need to add details like travel patterns. Margaret is confused about the aging infrastructure component. This would be addressed regardless of which alternative is selected, but should also be an evaluation criteria. 4. At the end of January, we should plan to ask for concurrence on purpose and need (more detailed than this one) and 2A and 2B screening—all in the same meeting. FHWA does not like to use absolute thresholds because there is a desire to let the process flow and not to restrict alternatives. • 5. On I-70, there were aerial photos that had different scales, so it appeared that there was less impact. We should avoid this. To portray the LEDPA, we need to make sure we have gone through the process of minimizing wetland impacts. J:LTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Corps Coord_120804.doc • Page E-428 • NORTH 1-25 EIS IIfOIIC:i1O❑ i'UEI1.91ii7i;: IIt9'7°1)11;1„iI(AJ MEETING MINUTES Briefing with the Corps of Engineers MEETING DATE: March 2,2005 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers Corps: Margaret Langworthy FHWA: Monica Pavlik,Ron Speral,Mike Vanderhoof,Bill Haas,Jean Wallace, ATTENDEES: CDDT Dave Martinez,Brad Beckham,Carol Parr. Renee Galeano-Popp FHU: Tom Anzia, Holly Miller,Gregg Mugele C&B: Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter-Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees,Craig Gaskill,Julie Morrison,Sarah Fowler,Alison Michaels, Bob Garcia, • COPIES: Stanley Elmquist,Becky Noe, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina went over the agenda,which is to discuss two items: Purpose and Need and the Corps' version of the evaluation criteria for Levels 1 and 2A. After this meeting,we will make a formal request of the Corps to formally approve our Purpose and Need statement. Then at our next meeting,we will plan to present the results of Levels 2A and 28 screening and will request informal concurrence on that. 2. Holly described the changes in this Purpose and Need statement from the previous one: changes in terminology,charts added. • Can we use the journey to work data to screen alternatives? • Do we need to define when the criteria are required for both highway and transit? We will need to make it clear which criteria are absolutes and which are not. • Can we use an absolute for measuring level of safety service? Any places that fall above the line would be studied with the intent to reduce the rate at that location. • Is the project purpose consistent with the project purpose required by the Corps? • Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation J:103225 MEETLNG MINUTESUIYLN-Misc Meeting hftnuies12005 Minutes&CUE-030205.doc Page E-429 NORTH 1-25 •, EIS MEETING MINUTES unortillion tiriamnrizillou Briefing with the Corps of Engineers March 2,2005 2af2 • Margaret is still looking for thresholds to be used for the criteria. The merger agreement says that we should use measurable criteria where we can. Mike thinks that if it is something we can measure,such as reducing the number of locations of accidents—that should be OK. Or we could set a threshold but it may be relatively low. Ron thinks you can't have a measurable threshold for safety. Holly mentioned that we could provide different limits along I-25 that have been improved to design standards. • Aging infrastructure is okay to leave in purpose and need. 3. For the criteria chart,we have used the Corps'format. • For the bridges,we should add that we will replace bridges that were structurally or functionally obsolete. 4. Margaret will send us comments on these criteria,and the Purpose and Need in about a week. We will send her prior to the next meeting the criteria for 2B. JA_Transportation1071609.400\manage\mtgAminutesWorps Briefing_03020SIgi.doc Page E-430 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES intormaton cooperation transpoi!anon Briefing Related to Section 404 Merger MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005 LOCATION: US Army Corps of Engineers USACE: Tim Carey, Margaret Langworthy EPA: Sarah Fowler USFWS: Alison Dean-Michaels ATTENDEES: FHWA: Ron Speral, Mike Vanderhoof, Jean Wallace CDOT: Carol Parr, Brad Beckham FHU: Tom Anzia, Holly Miller C&B: Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Dave Martinez, Bob Garcia, Robert Edgar, Julie Morrison, • Gregg Mugele, C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina went over the agenda: • Final comments and concurrence on purpose and need. • Discussion of Level 2 screening. 2. We will take final comments today and send out a final draft to the Corps, Sarah Fowler, Deb Lebow, Sharleen Bakeman, Brad Beckman, FHWA, and Region 4. 3. Holly described the main changes that have been made since Tim Carey's comments which had been received a month or so ago. 4. Tim had one over arching comment which is related to transit. The statement on page 7 that is: "There is a need to develop a coordinated, overall long-term strategy for ROW preservation..." is very all conclusive and broad. Does this mean that at the end of the process we cannot recommend an alternative that just solves a specific transportation need unless it also provides for future ROW preservation? Brad described the phased ROD assumption, which is identifying a phase 1 which has AO conformity and independent utility. • Federal Highway Administration /Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-431 NORTH I-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES mlormatlon cooperation. transportation Briefing Related to Section 404 Merger May 11, 2005 2of3 Tim requested that we add the year 2030 to the first sentence under"Highway and Transit Mobility and Accessibility". At the top of page 4, we have a purpose statement that only relates to 2030. The committees on the project are interested in looking beyond 2030. CDOT and FHWA need to decide if the sentence about"long-term strategy for ROW preservation"should be expressed for the year 2030 or beyond 2030. And we need to decide if that is such a compelling need that we could not recommend a strategy that only addressed the need for 2030. Ron Speral feels strongly that this document needs to stop at 2030. This should not be a Tier 1 EIS. 5. Tim's main comment was to request another clarification on page 7 about transportation demand. That is related to "capacity and efficiency". 6. Tim provided verbal concurrence with purpose and need. We will clarify the 2030 vs. • beyond 2030 and send this out again with a letter requesting written concurrence. 7. We passed out the complete package of criteria, measures, and thresholds. The Corps has seen most of this previously, although the Level 2A and 28 criteria and measures have been finalized. Tim asked Mike about the 1978 DOT order that states that transportation alternatives will be evaluated based on practicability(rather than reasonableness). As long as we are screening on reasonableness but the screening is also related to practicability, that would make the most sense. For environmental resources, the Corps will want us to treat resources like listed species and AQ in a manner that gives them more say in the alternatives screening. June 23 is a tentative date for a NEPA/404 workshop. Economic growth demands needs to be removed from 2A—safety also needs to be removed from the transit category. For effects to the built environment and social environment, as we move through the evaluation process, we will have more data so we can more clearly say whether a certain impact could be considered not practicable. The Corps would likely have a problem with eliminating an alternative for"built environment" impacts—especially if that alternative had wetland impacts. EJ should not have the same"standing" as 4(f) since it is an Executive Order and not a law. • Please get additional comments on this criteria back to us after this meeting. Page E-432 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES intormation cooperation. transportation Briefing Related to Section 404 Merger May 11, 2005 3of3 8. Holly described the 2A screening results. Margaret questioned how much of an impact on 1-25 traffic would an arterial road have? We modeled US 85 and if you improved it, it would take 5 to 10% if traffic off of 1-25. For the CM Alternative, we need to document the most generous assumption for each of the elements and show if it can stand as a stand-alone alternative. Sarah asked for clarification about transit operators. We will be developing a future plan for transit operations. What about guided bus (like on 1-70 West)? We need to make sure we allow this as a derivative of BRT. 9. The Corps needs to be provided with a table for 2A and 2B—that shows clearly why different alternatives were dropped out. • 10. Holly described the roadway analysis results for 2B. The only alternatives that were eliminated were the shorter distance alternatives. We need to provide Tim with the very specific data for wetlands, endangered species, and water quality (Waters of the US). If we are screening based on social, we need to make sure we have quantifiable information. 11. Gina described the transit 28 results. Commuter Rail F may drop out because of impacts to rare or T/E species. Commuter Rail A may also drop out because of environmental reasons, but not if the most substantial impacts occur on the FasTracks corridor. 12. Once the southern terminus issue is resolved, we will need to send out: • Revised (and final) purpose and need. • Level 2 screening table. • Quantitative data for aquatic resources. 13. If Tim sees a problem with any of this, he will let us know. • I:LTransportatIon\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Section 404 Merger 051105 ttlg.aoc Page E-433 12300 W. Dakota Ave., Ste. 180 • Lakewood, CO 80228 U.S.Department of Transportation July 19, 2005 Federal Highway Administration Colorado Federal Aid Division Mr. Tim Carey, Chief Denver Regulatory Office, Omaha District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9307 South Wadsworth Littleton, CO 80128-6901 Dear Mr. Carey: Enclosed please find a current copy of the Purpose and Need Statement for the North I-25 EIS. This most recent version includes some minor changes to the"Purpose" statement and to the "Mobility and Accessibility"Need statement to address concerns raised by our office on the planning horizon as well as to reflect our discussions at our last meeting on May 11,2005. At this time,we are requesting written concurrence from you that this Purpose and Need statement • is acceptable under the NEPA/404 merger agreement. Please contact Jean Wallace at(720)963-3015 if you have any questions regarding the Purpose and Need Statement or this request. We look forward to receiving your written response. Sincerely, ilavid Nicol,P.E. Division Administrator Enclosure cc(w/enclosure): Margaret Langworthy, USACE Dave Martinez, CDOT Region 4 of Parr, CDOT Region 4 nom Anzia,Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig Gina McAfee, Carter&Burgess Ron Speral,FHWA Dom, ( IE B N7 Mike Vanderhoof,FHWA JUL2t2005 , :, , KLEUP ; `' ' ill • FELSBURG,H0LT& ULLEVIG Page E-434 4,04T A1�: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY • aT al,� CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE,9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BLVD. LIT-ETON,COLORADO 80128.6901 July 25,2005 Mr. David Nicol Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Colorado Federal Aid Division 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 180 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 RE: North I-25 Front Range EIS Dear Mr.Nicol: I'm writing this letter in response to your correspondence of July 19,2005. In your letter, you requested that the Corps of Engineers(Corps)provide concurrence on the Purpose and Need Statement for the above referenced EIS. In response to your request, and in accordance with our NEPA/404 Merger Agreement,the Corps concurs with the Purpose and Need Statement. • Please extend my thanks to Ms.Jean Wallace and the project team for taking my earlier comments into consideration and revising the original draft Purpose and Need Statement. I believe the current statement more accurately reflects the purpose and need for the project. If you have any questions,please call me at 303-979-4120. Sincerely, Timo y T. Chief, er Re Office • Page E-435 NORTH 1-25 • EIS 4 MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation Section 404 Merger Update MEETING DATE: May 15, 2006 LOCATION: Corps of Engineers CBOT: Dave Martinez, Carol Parr, Brad Beckham, Sherleen Bakeman USACE: Margaret Langworthy EPA: Sarah Fowler ATTENDEES: USFWS: Alison Michael FHWA: Mike Vanderhoof, Jean Wallace FHU: Holly Buck C&B: Gina McAfee PREPARER: Carter°Burgess Gina McAfee Attendees, Bob Garcia, Stan Elmquist, Steve Olson, Dave Beckhouse, COPIES: Robert Edgar, Tom Anzia, Gayl Harrison, Chris Primus, Wendy Wallach, • C&B File#071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Gina gave a very brief update on the project. 2. Brad described the derivation of the work"pot"—the seventh pot covers projects that are outside of committed projects for Regions 1 through 6. 3. Holly described the new"No Action"alternative—these are generally maintenance or safety issues. These could have wetland or other natural resource impacts. 4. Margaret asked about our rationale for combining highway and transit components into each of the packages. Holly described the primary reasoning, which was to first address the primary 1-25 purpose and need of addressing congestion—widen the highway plus managed lanes. 5. Sarah wanted to know which of the two transit alternatives would be most energy efficient. 6. Tim Cary asked about a transit implementer—should this be a screening criterion for practicability? This will be a screening criterion, but not at this level. Federal Highway Administration I Federal Transit Administration I Colorado Department of Transportation • Page E-436 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation transportation Section 404 Merger Update May 15, 2006 2 of 2 7. Brad asked about the physical impact difference between toll and HOT. The two had slightly different alignments. Both were assumed to be express tolled. At Level 3, we assumed two managed lanes in each location. 8. For travel time comparison between highway and transit, there is a discrepancy between our criteria and the transit travel time. We will add this to the transit travel time column. Action: Holly 9. There seems to be a discrepancy in the highway chart between the hours of congestion and the miles of congestion. Action: Holly will check with Chris Primus. 10. The reason there is such a large capital cost difference between six lanes and toll is that the tolled lanes would be longer because of the seventh pot committed project. 11. BRT looks pretty good from a purpose and need, practicability, and environmental standpoint. • 12. Sarah would like to see a robust discussion of indirect impacts in the DEIS. What will be the trade-offs between the two packages in terms of land use patterns? 13. FHWA will send an alternatives sign-off request to the Corps. Action: Jean Wallace/Mike Vanderhoof. 14. Mike questioned whether or not we could mix and match along 1-25. 15. We should combine the purpose and need, practicability and environmental matrices. We need to make sure that we never eliminate the LEDPA. Action: Wendy Wallach 16. We will send out revised charts. Action: Holly 17. We will set up avoidance and minimization meetings to look at"hot spots." Action: Gina ItTransportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\Agency\Carps404merger_0515061gg.doc • Page E-437 � � \ e Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration Region NAP Colorado Division U.S. Department12300 West Dakota Avenue,Suite 310 12300 W.Dakota Ave.,Suite 180 of Transportation Lakewood,CO 80 22 8-2 58 3 Lakewood,CO 80228 Telephone:720-963-3300 Telephone:720-963-3000 ,v U Mr. Tim Carey II U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Denver Regulatory Office Omaha District 9307 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Littleton,CO 80128-6901 Dear Mr. Carey: Subject: North 1-25 Merger Concurrence Point Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act/Clear Water Action Section 404 merger process for transportation projects in Colorado,we are requesting concurrence from the Corps of Engineers regarding the alternatives that we have identified for detailed analysis in the draft EIS. These were presented to your staff in a meeting on May 15,2006,with subsequent clarification provided to you by e-mail on June 23,July 13,and July 24, 2006. These packages are: • DEIS Alternative A: General purpose lanes I-25 plus commuter rail • along BN Corridor plus commuter bus on US 285; and • DEIS Alternative B: Express lanes plus bus rapid transit(on I-25). As we learn more about how the different elements of the packages work together to meet the project purpose and need, our intention is to be able to have the flexibility to combine the elements to optimize the alternatives. We do not expect to add elements that are not identified in either of these two packages. Enclosed for easy reference is a description of how these packages were formed and maps of them. If you have any further questions,please contact Monica Pavlik at(720)963-3012. Sincerely Yours, OQ Lee Waddleton David A.Nicol,P.E. Regional Administrator Division Administrator • Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration cc: Sarah Fowler,EPA Alison Michael, USFWS Carol Parr/Dave Martinez,CDOT Region 4 Brad Beckham.CDOT EPB Gina McAfee,Carter-Burgess File\F:\mpavlikW125\carey.Itr071706 MCP edits 8-2-06.doc • Page E-438 „��^�^�� e�z DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY S �^ CORPS OF ENGINEERS,OMAHA DISTRICT • w �� DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE.9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BLVD. -l` � 1ITLETON.COLORADO 80118-6901 August 9, 2006 Mr. David Nicol Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Colorado Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 180 Lakewood,Colorado 80228 Mr. Lee Waddleton Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration Region VIII 12300 West Dakota Avenue,Suite 310 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 RE: North I-25 EIS Dear Messrs. Nicol and Waddleton: • I'm writing this letter in response to your correspondence of August 4,2006. In your letter, you requested that the Corps of Engineers (Corps)provide concurrence on alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the Draft EIS for the above-referenced project. In response to your request, and in accordance with our NEPA/404 Merger Agreement, the Corps concurs with the alternatives to evaluated, as the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative has not been eliminated. • Please extend my thanks to Ms.Monica Pavlik and the project team for taking my earlier comments into consideration and revising the alternatives. If you have any questions,please call me at 303-979-4120. Sincerely, Timo Chief,Den r Regu ice CF: Sarah Fowler,EPA Alison Michael,USFWS Martha Chieply, CENWO-OD-R • 1 Page E-439 i op DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY • CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT Im -- Iy DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 - July 29,2008 Ms. Carol Parr Colorado Department of Transportation Planning/Environmental Section 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Wetland Delineations along the I-25 Highway Corridor Corps File No. 200480110 Dear Ms. Parr: Mr.Terry McKee of my office has reviewed the July 28,2008 wetland delineation report for this project. The wetland report and wetland mapping for this project is considered accurate and accepted by my office. This delineation verification is valid for 5 years from the date of this letter,unless there has been a change in hydrology. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredged or fill material,and • any excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent,in the aquatic sites identified in your delineation report,this office should be notified by a proponent of the project for Department of the Army permits,changes in permit requirements and jurisdictional determinations pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Work in an aquatic site should be shown on a map identifying the Quarter Section,Township,Range and County and Latitude and Longitude,Decimal Degrees(datum NAD 83)of the work and the dimensions of work in each area. Any loss of an aquatic site may require mitigation. Mitigation requirements will be determined during the Department of the Army permitting review. If there are any questions regarding wetland determinations call Mr.Terry McKee at(303)979- 4120 and reference Corps No.200480110. If there is any question regarding permitting and jurisdictional determinations call Ms.Margaret Langworthy at this office. Sincerely, Tim.. y T. C. ey Chi- ,Denver 'eg. atory O face tm • Page E-440 State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ Region 4-Loveland Residency ,; P OT 2207 E.Highway 402 : Loveland,CO 80537-8885 DEPARTMENT Of TIWSPORTAnCri January 21,2004 Deborah Lebow Environmental Protection Agency NEPA—EcoSystem Protection Mail Stop 8EPR-EP 999 18th Street Denver,CO 80202 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Ms.Lebow: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • I. Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly I-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and mil technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, Dad RA.ilitair,5 David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N.1-25 Front Range EIS cc: Project File • Page E-441 J,�QeD SigTF� •i xcs, no UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY •! REGION 8 gtPRol. 999 18TM STREET - SUITE 300 DENVER, CO 80202-2466 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.goviregion08 MAY 1 7 2004 Ref: 8EPR-N Leo O. Waddleton Federal Transit Administration 216 1O Street, Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 William Jones Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator, Colorado Division 555 Zang Street, suite 250 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Re: Scoping Comments on North I-25 Corridor • Environmental Impact Statement Dear Messrs. Waddleton and Jones: This letter is in response to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department of Transportation's (CDOT)request for scoping comments regarding the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for the North I-25 Front Range project. The project area extends along I-25 from I-70 in Denver to CO Hwy 14 north of Ft. Collins. The corridor is bordered by US-85 on the east and US 287 on the west. This area covers major portions of _Denver,Boulder,Broomfield,Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties. EPA is pleased to see an EIS that will analyze the overall transportation needs of an entire corridor. Enclosed are EPA's detailed scoping comments. These comments are intended to help ensure a comprehensive assessment of the project's environmental impacts, adequate public disclosure, and sufficient alternatives to support the decision-making process. We understand that you are well versed in the NEPA process but offer a complete letter to provide our input early in the process. We sincerely hope that our scoping comments will be beneficial to you and to the project, and that they will help streamline the process. Our major concerns with the North I-25 Front Range transportation project are the indirect and cumulative environmental impacts of the growth along the Front Range as well as future air quality impacts in the region. We voiced these concerns at the scoping meeting held in Loveland on 2/26/04. Based on discussions at the scoping meeting, we understand that you • a as Printed on Recycled Paper Page E-442 • intend to address these issues within each of the EIS alternatives. We look forward to working with you on the development of a strategy for a comprehensive impacts analysis. If you have questions about these comments,please feel free to call me at(303)312-6004 or Robert Edgar of my staff at(303) 312-6669. Thank you in advance for consideration of these comments. We look forward to a continued cooperative working relationship with your agencies. Sincerely, • Larry Svoboda Director, NEPA Program Office of Ecosystems Protection and Remediation Enclosures(2) cc: Jean Wallace, Program Manager,FHWA David Martinez, CDOT Region 4 • M�Y 19 ._ , - 2 Page E-443 EPA SCOPING COMMENTS • 1-25 North Front Range EIS Alternatives EPA recommends that this EIS investigate alternatives that incorporate the following options: 1. Intelligent transportation system improvements on I-25, US 287 and US 85; 2. Travel Demand Management(eg.,tolls) 3. Expanded Inter-Regional Bus Service; 4. Combined General Purpose-High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Bus Lanes; and 5. Passenger Rail Service with development along existing rail lines. For each alternative,please include the morning (am)and afternoon (pm)peak travel times at the build-out year between Denver and other cities such as Boulder,Longmont, Loveland,Fort Collins and Greeley. Show a comparison between today's travel times and the projected travel times at the build-out year. The EIS should also address the impacts of interchanges and transit stations. Often, different locations will have significantly different impacts,particularly indirect impacts, so we encourage you to have an array of options that are sufficiently different to compare various impacts. The • EIS should coordinate with the pilot project to combine NEPA and transportation planning currently underway in the Ft. Collins- Greeley area. Air Duality Impacts This project covers several counties including the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area which is currently a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO),particulate matter (PM10)and 1-hour ozone. In addition, this metropolitan area along with the counties of Larimer,Adams and Weld may be classified as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The analysis of the air quality impacts in the EIS should allow for a comparison of the impacts between the various alternatives. The analysis should also cover likely combinations of alternatives such as minor widening, expanded regional bus service,versus highway widening only. This comparison of air quality impacts along with some reasonable steps to help mitigate significant air quality impacts will assist the public and decision-maker in evaluating the proposed action and the alternatives to the proposed action. The EIS should present the existing environment(current conditions), a no- action alternative (conditions without the proposed action), and future conditions under proposed alternatives as well as cumulative effects for each alternative. Listed below are our suggestions for a complete air quality discussion. Baseline Analysis of Clean Air Act Criteria Pollutants and Conformity In the existing environment section,the EIS should establish the baseline air emissions and concentrations of criteria pollutants and the area's current compliance status with national and state air quality regulations. The following information should be considered for inclusion in 1 • Page E-444 • the document: • The pollutants to be evaluated should include CO,nitrogen oxides (NOx),volatile organic compounds and hydrocarbons, ozone,and PM10. • Any local and regional air monitoring data. Local hot spot monitoring and ambient monitoring projects implemented by the state or local air agencies would also be sources of short or long-term air quality data. • Analysis of the Clean Air Act attainment status for CO, PM10, 1-hour ozone,NOx, sulfur dioxide, and PM 2.5. The recent non-attainment status for 8-hour ozone in this project area should be discussed as well as local actions being planned to reach attainment such as the Early Action Compact. • Any air dispersion modeling that has already been completed including urban air-shed modeling and hot spot assessments. Include relevant climatological data such as the incidence of hazardous weather that may impact transportation as well as a windrose showing the prevalent wind directions and wind speeds. For modeling results,describe the type of model used and include a summary of the values used for the model input parameters. • • A complete inventory of mobile source emissions in the area of the project as well as a cumulative impacts analysis that accounts for both mobile and stationary sources. Recent mobile source estimates may be found in local and regional transportation plans or in a conformity determination. The estimates should include fugitive or re-entrained road dust. Hazardous Air Pollutants Recent studies are showing a variety of health-related effects near high traffic areas. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health or environmental effects. Section 112(b)(1)of the Clean Air Act established the list of HAPs. There are currently 188 HAPs. In a rulemaking published on March 29,2001, EPA identified a subset of 21 mobile source air toxics(MSATs),a subset of the 188 HAPs with the addition of diesel exhaust(PM and organic gases). EPA recognizes that the methods and procedures for assessing the environmental impact of MSATs may be new to many.parties working on transportation projects through the NEPA process. Policies, procedures, and methods for assessing MSATs in NEPA documents are still being developed. Although regulatory standards for MSATs have not been set, there is substantial information on impacts that can be ascertained from emissions and concentrations data. The level of analysis of MSATs is most appropriately determined on a case-by-case basis, • 2 Page E-445 recognizing that each project has unique characteristics. The impact of a proposed project should • be analyzed appropriate to its significance,paying particular attention to providing information that can be of use to the decision-maker and that meets the needs of public disclosure. The analysis should not be expected to be the same in either content or specificity for every project. For this project,we suggest that a general discussion of MSAT's along with an emissions inventory be included in the EIS. Identify residential areas/schools immediately adjacent to highways, interchanges,rail lines and transit stations, that could be impacted. For purposes of comparison,it will be useful to determine whether future conditions will be worse than today's existing conditions, and how the emission inventories for each alternative compares with the existing conditions. Analysis of all air pollutant impacts for the alternatives Mobile source emissions should be estimated using EPA's Mobile 6.2 emissions model and EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,also known as AP-42. The emissions and air quality impacts associated with each alternative including the no build scenario should be estimated and should include the following: • The vehicle miles traveled (VMT)from the best available travel models for the traffic and travel patterns estimated for the future transportation system under all build and no-build scenarios; • All pollutants mentioned above including MSATs and road dust; • • Analysis,where appropriate,of CO and PM10 using hot spot and ambient modeling methods. PM10 hot spots can be analyzed using several models including CAL3QHC for comparing alternatives; • Construction impacts for each alternative. Construction impacts include the equipment exhaust and dust created by construction equipment. (See also the Maintenance and Construction Impacts Section,below). Conformity Analysis This project is located in a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO), PM10,and 1-hour ozone, and the project area is proposed as part of the 8-hour ozone non-attainment area. Adams,Boulder,Broomfield, and Denver counties are part of the Denver metro maintenance areas for the PM10 and 1-hour ozone standards. Demonstrating conformity for CO and 1-hour ozone standards with the SIP is required and may be required for the 8-hour ozone standard if the Denver Early Action Compact is not successful. • The project must be part of a conforming transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) before an EIS or EA can be finalized. The EIS should assess and discuss whether the project meets this criteria. • The project concept and scope in the MS must not be significantly different from the project analyzed in the plan and TIP. This should be discussed in the EIS. • If the conformity analysis was completed in another document, ensure that the latest planning assumption and models were used. 3 Page E-446 • • For the purpose of conformity, complete CO hot spot analysis is required (See 40 CFR sections 93.116 and 93.123). Possible mitigation of impacts We suggest that the EIS include possible methods and techniques that might be employed to mitigate the negative impacts of the project on air quality. A few suggestions follow: • Implementation of stage I/ stage II vapor controls (reducing vehicle refueling emissions). • Limitations on idling emissions from diesel engines particularly during construction • Use of soot filters on diesel powered construction equipment • Use of watering to control fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. Where possible, estimate the air emissions reduction for various mitigation measures. • Mitigation of construction impacts should be fully considered. Mitigation methods include dust suppression using emulsion solutions and temporary paved or aggregate road base, diesel oxidation catalysts on engine exhaust, ultra low sulfur diesel fuel,biodiesel, engine idling time-limits,use of modem low emission equipment,time limitations on idling emissions from diesel engines, and the use of soot filters on diesel equipment. • A list of suggested practices is attached. • Hazardous Waste/Superfund The analysis should include a list of potentially affected hazardous waste sites, and mitigation measures to ensure avoidance of hydrologic and other disturbances at these sites. If any underground storage tanks are found in the proposed right-of-way, CDPHE should be notified. A contingency plan on finding unidentified petroleum and hazardous substances should be in place prior to disturbing the soil. Water Quality As you know, highway construction and completed highway projects can result in increased surface water runoff, stream channel alternation, alteration in hydrology,wetland modification and other water quality-related problems. In rapidly growing areas such as this corridor, the majority of the water quality impacts will be indirect and cumulative. This project crosses over several streams that are in the South Platte drainage system. Degradation and depletion of the South Platte River are major issues,and we suggest looking at the impacts on a watershed scale and addressing these water quality issues accordingly. The question to be answered is whether this project contributes to those overarching impacts. In addition,the water quality section of this EIS should analyze the following topics: • Present Colorado designated uses of the affected water bodies and identify if uses are currently impaired. (CDPHE 303(d) list). For example, a segment of the Cache LaPoudre • 4 Page E-447 River has been listed as impaired due to e. coli. The State(CDPI-IE)has also identified most streams in this corridor for additional monitoring and evaluation. Please refer to Appendix C,pages 7 and 89 of the monitoring and evaluation list in the Status of Water Quality Report in Colorado 2004. Potential water quality problems have been identified for the following streams: Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, Boulder Creek, Cache LaPoudre, South Platte,and St.Vrain Creek. Below is a list of what would be included in a very complete water quality analysis. All of this information may not be appropriate for this project: • Baseline water quality data to provide a comparison between projected conditions and current conditions. This can include baseline data on the following parameters: • temperature, • turbidity (as an indicator of sediment loading), • channel morphological conditions, • the existence of any known point or non-point pollution sources or other problems including nutrients,pesticides and metals,or other toxic substances, • aquatic species and the condition and productivity of that habitat, • the occurrence of aquatic species of concern, e.g., listed threatened and endangered species, state species of concern. The assessment should reveal what data are available, gaps in the data, and the reliability of that information. Particular attention should be given to fisheries spawning and rearing • habitat. • The extent to which the physical aquatic habitat could be impaired by project activities, including effects on stream structure and channel stability, streambed substrate including seasonal and spawning habits, streambank vegetation and riparian habitats. The analysis should disclose whether the project will cause any reductions in habitat capability or impair designated uses. Other information relevant to the analysis, such as aquatic species habitat and condition and productivity of that habitat should also be included. Particular attention should be directed at evaluating and disclosing aggregate effects of increased levels of sediment, salts and metals. • A forecast of future conditions for each of the alternatives considered in the document. The forecast should track the baseline data points of concern. • A description of best management practices (BMPs)to be used to assure that water quality will not be impaired. • A monitoring program to be used for determining the effects of the project on water quality and the aquatic environment. • Thresholds for adaptive management, i.e., a description of what will trigger a change in 5 Page E-448 • the BMPs if monitoring data shows that water quality is being impaired by the highway project. Storm Water Runoff Storm water discharges associated with highway construction are an industrial activity according to federal storm water regulations (see 40 CFR section 122.6). Highway construction projects must obtain a pollution discharge permit for storm water if construction activities will disturb more than one acre of land. Construction activities may be covered by a general pollution discharge permit rather than an individual permit. If a storm water permit is required,on-site notification must be posted along with a pollution prevention plan. Normal highway runoff contains contaminants which could affect surface and ground water quality. The EIS should characterize the current quality of streams and ground water resources in the vicinity of the project, as well as the quality of the anticipated highway runoff. Copper, lead and zinc at a minimum should be addressed. Existing water quality impairments or effluent limitations should be considered so that the storm water runoff related to both construction and post-construction does not cause or contribute to a problem with water quality standards. BMPs for collecting and treating storm water during construction and post- construction as required in state and federal pollution discharge pcaniits should be outlined in the EIS. The MS should include an estimate of increased storm water flows from impervious • surfaces for each alternative and should address the potential effects of these increased flows to adjacent receiving waters. We suggest using the Driscoll model for these estimates and for the impact the runoff will have on receiving waters. EPA and FHWA are currently working with the Driscoll model to ensure that it is appropriate for these uses in Colorado. Provisions for hazardous waste containment in case of a spill, and means of collection and treatment of storm water runoff both during and after construction, should also be included. Although this project falls under a State rather than an EPA permit,EPA requires a sediment basin during construction where one outfall drains ten or more acres. Flow attenuation devices or sediment basins during construction,therefore, are suggested but are not required. Regional stormwater detention facilities may be used as a BMP for reducing sediment loading provided that the proper authority and/or permissions are obtained so those facilities can be maintained in a condition necessary to provide adequate sediment removal efficiency. Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. Road construction clearing and earthwork generally includes sedimentation and hydrologic impacts which may cause changes to surface and subsurface drainage patterns and, ultimately,wetland integrity and function. Wetlands are significant environmental resources that have experienced severe cumulative losses nationally. We do not know the extent of wetland impacts from this project. We are nevertheless including this information so that this scoping letter is complete. • 6 Page E-449 The document should describe the following topics: • • Existing wetlands within the analysis area(the analysis area is the landscape or watershed perspective,larger than the project area) • Wetland acreage, type, ecological function, and how both acreage and function will be protected; • A thorough analysis of alternatives to avoid and minimize wetland and aquatic resource habitat impacts to assure consistency with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines; • Indirect impacts on wetlands,in terms of how the direct impacts of the highway will impact the adjacent wetlands and upland hydrology and habitat; • Indirect impacts to wetlands from induced development(this may be addressed elsewhere in the document, e.g., in the land use section); and • A clear description of direct, indirect and cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands from all project activities and an explanation of how the direct and indirect impacts, if they cannot be avoided, will be mitigated. Avoidance of wetland losses is a primary requirement of the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps) and the EPA through their Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement state that they will"strive to avoid adverse impacts and offset unavoidable adverse impacts to existing aquatic resources,and for wetlands,will strive to achieve a goal of no overall net loss of values and functions." Avoidance is required before mitigation will be considered. In addition, where applicable,the discussion must address the reputable presumption that there are less damaging upland alternatives. • The section 404(b)(1)guidelines provide the substantive environmental criteria for protecting waters of the U.S. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines,the Corps and EPA 404 staff should be consulted for specific guidance on the scope of avoidance and minimization alternatives that need to be addressed. We recommend coordination with the Corps and other resource agencies when developing alternatives to determine whether impacts to wetlands can be eliminated or reduced. The document should include a discussion that informs the public of the potential requirement of a section 404 permit for any discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States, including wetlands. We encourage you to conduct the 404 permit process concurrently with the NEPA process, and recommend that a draft 404(b) (1)analysis be prepared for the preferred alternative and appended to the NEPA document. The least damaging practicable alternative should be addressed in the document. This will help ensure that 404 regulatory requirements are properly integrated into the NEPA process as directed by the CEQ regulations(40 CFR 1500). A separate meeting on the wetlands permitting options should be held with EPA and the Corps,FWS and other interested agencies. Vegetation and Wildlife The environmental document should include information on the current quality and capacity of the relevant habitat, usage by wildlife near the proposed project,and impacts upon 7 • Page E-450 • known wildlife corridors/trails and habitat fragmentation. When evaluating wildlife impacts, include the impacts on birds. Existing wildlife mortality should be disclosed, if known. The document should evaluate the increased mortality from higher traffic levels,habitat removal, reduced access to available habitat and habitat fragmentation, effects on biodiversity, and estimated reductions in impact due to mitigation. We recommend the use of GIS habitat fragmentation map series to visually depict the footprint and zone of influence for each alternative and reasonably-foreseeable build-out scenarios. In addition, information on how invasive species will be handled would be appropriate. Threatened and Endangered Species We are not including information in this letter on threatened and endangered species other than to emphasize that the EIS should include the Biological Assessment and the associated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS)Biological Opinion or formal concurrence. Maintenance and Construction Impacts Maintenance and construction activities can have significant air and water quality impacts. This project area is a maintenance area for some of the criteria pollutants, and has recently violated the new 8-hour ozone standard. If it is not already required in the SIP,we encourage you to estimate the most likely daily emissions associated with each construction phase of the project and review possible mitigation actions. Air quality impacts during construction are potentially significant,and construction periods can last quite a few years. We • are enclosing examples of mitigation for air pollution during construction that you can require of your contractors. We suggest that you incorporate whichever of these actions that make sense for this project. In addition,to minimize water quality impacts,properly staging construction activities so that there is a manageable amount of exposed soils at any given time, is encouraged. If construction activities cannot be staged and/or stormwater runoff cannot be effectively treated to remove sediment during construction, steep slopes and exposed soils should be stabilized to minimize sediment transport to local water bodies and to reduce the risk of localized flooding in roadways. Recommended slope stabilization techniques may include but are not limited to the use of erosion control blankets and soil binding polymers. Road standards and design have a major effect on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance needs. Scheduled maintenance, such as ditch cleaning and disposal of debris generated from sanding, as well as anticipated but unscheduled maintenance of debris from slumps, should be analyzed and planned for during the design phase of construction and reconstruction projects. Past practices of sidecasting material over the shoulder,filling depressions and widening shoulders have an adverse effect on wetlands and riparian areas, and should be addressed. Winter maintenance often results in the introduction of sediment and salt,either directly • 8 Page E-451 or indirectly into streams and associated riparian and wetland resources. These maintenance • activities are more a matter of long-term indirect and cumulative effects,and should be analyzed accordingly. Snow plowing subsequent to sanding moves sand and salt off the roadbed to adjacent storm sewers and ditches. It then migrates until deposited in streams or forms a carpet on flat ground. Where winter maintenance may affect wetlands,riparian areas or water quality, the effects should be disclosed in the NEPA document. This discussion should include steps taken to minimize and mitigate unavoidable effects on waters of the U.S. Environmental Justice We are including here the questions EPA will ask when reviewing this document's environmental justice analysis. These questions come from EPA Guidance for Consideration of Environmental Justice in Clean Air Act Section 309 Reviews, dated July, 1999. • Were the minority characteristics of potentially affected communities identified? • Were the relevant economic indicators (e.g.,average median income) of the potentially affected populations identified? • Were potential environmental impacts to minority populations or low-income populations identified? • What effort was made by the Federal Agency to secure input and participation from potentially impacted minority and/or low income communities? • Are impacts to the minority populations and low-income populations disproportionately high and adverse compared to the general population or a comparison group; and • • If disproportionately high and adverse impact to minority and low income population is identified, can those impacts be mitigated? Pollution Prevention Section 6602 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established that as a national priority,the following actions should be implemented: • Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; • Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; • Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; • Disposal or other release into the environment should be employed as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. We raise this issue here in a general manner. Pollution prevention should be evaluated at each level of highway construction,maintenance and operation to reduce waste streams and reduce use of toxic substances. Pollution prevention is a voluntary program. Through pollution prevention efforts, agencies and private companies have been able to reduce or eliminate groups of pollutants, save money, and reduce regulatory requirements. The EPA Pollution Prevention Program can help 9 • Page E-452 • with information on new ideas and technology. Please contact John Brink at(303) 312-6498. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Growth The indirect impacts from the induced growth that may occur because of transportation. improvements,both highway and transit, in this corridor will need to be addressed, as well as the cumulative environmental impacts from potential growth in this area. EPA understands that FHWA, CDOT, and RTD-Denver have proposed using Delphi-Plus as a methodology for assessing indirect induced growth effects for this project. Transit options in particular may induce growth in and around transit stops. The end of the transit corridor will be of concern for potential environmental impacts,as well as impacts on feeder routes. A comparison of alternatives with reasonably foreseeable growth patterns should be included, and their impacts addressed. Environmental criteria that may be important to consider include the following points: • Differences in vehicle miles traveled(VMT)translating into air quality improvements; • Differences in open space translating into habitat preserved; • Flood plain, wetland and riparian areas preserved or avoided,through sustainable development; • Amount of impervious surface per alternative, translating into water quality impacts; and • Infrastructure costs,translating into wastewater and drinking water investments, and • economic impacts. The land use section may be the appropriate place to document the actual environmental impacts of any induced and cumulative growth. In most EIS's, we see a good summary of what will happen to the land use in the area, e.g.,how many acres will be converted from farmland to commercial or residential, but we do not see those changes translated into environmental impacts, e.g., acres of wetlands lost or increased stormwater flow due to increased impervious surfaces. We would like to see an impacts analysis performed in the EIS. Land conversion changes the ecosystem through paving,fragmenting and increased human activity,all of which invariably change the natural migration processes and brings non-native plant species to the area. The document should analyze these potential impacts,rather than just reporting acreage potentially disturbed. We understand that land use decisions are not FHWA,FTA or CDOT's decisions to make. However, if alternatives with land use components that reduce the environmental impacts of the expected growth on air,water,habitat fragmentation, etc,require actions by local responsible entities, those actions should be addressed in the document through agreements, plans, or some process outlining how those actions will be developed Mitigation The mitigation proposals in this EIS should have enough detail to allow the reader to determine how the mitigation will be implemented,where it will be implemented, and whether it • 10 Page E-453 will be effective. The attached list of suggested mitigation measures for air quality could help • fulfill these requirements. Mitigation not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency can also be included in the EIS with a discussion of which agency does have jurisdiction and how the mitigation could be implemented. Land use is particularly relevant to mitigation of transportation impacts. Monitoring The EIS should include a discussion of and a commitment to monitoring for each resource category determined to be significant. A properly designed monitoring plan will demonstrate how well the preferred alternative resolves the identified issues and concerns by measuring the effectiveness of the mitigation measures in controlling or minimizing adverse effects. The EIS should include a feedback mechanism which can compare baseline data with monitoring results to ensure that mitigation strategies will improve in the future and that unforeseen adverse effects are identified and minimized. To be effective, the design of the monitoring program should include the following criteria: • Ensure State objectives and standards are met; • Provide a mechanism to initiate additional measures if needed to meet State standards and goals; • Evaluate the effectiveness of the BMPs utilized in the project; • • Evaluate the accuracy of estimates made in the analysis; and • Provide a feedback mechanism for future projects. I1 • Page E-454 • Possible Mitigation Strategies for Air Quality Highway Projects Construction phase-requirements which can be included in construction contracts Construction vehicles (source of air toxics): • Require that construction vehicles meet EPA's most recent standards for new onroad and nonroad diesel engines • Require Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on all construction vehicle diesel engines(e.s., diesel particulate filters/traps, oxidizing soot filters, catalytic oxidizers,and other feasible control devices that become available to limit or prevent exhaust emissions) • Require diesel retrofit of construction vehicle engines as appropriate • Use alternatives in engines and/or diesel fuels e.g., engines using fuel cell technology; electric engines; engines using liquified or compressed natural gas; diesel engines fueled with biodiesel or ultra-low sulfur fuel; fuel onsite equipment with lower sulfur highway diesel instead of nonroad diesel fuel • Require heavy duty construction vehicle fleet owners in nonattainment areas to participate in EPA's Clean Fuel Vehicle Fleet Program to gradually increase the • percentage of low emission vehicles in their fleets,meet specified federal emission standards for low emission vehicles, and power such vehicles by clean diesel, natural gas,propane, ethanol,methanol or electricity • Prohibit excessive idling by setting an idling time limit and training employees on requirements (must be in compliance with local municipality's anti-idling regulations; go beyond local requirements if circumstances warrant). Install engine preheater devices to eliminate unnecessary idling. • Prohibit tampering with equipment to increase horsepower or to defeat emission control device effectiveness • Require construction vehicle engines to be properly tuned and maintained • Use construction vehicles with minimum practical engine size for the intended job Construction site logistics: • Route diesel truck traffic to and from the construction site away from communities and schools • Minimize construction-related traffic trips through appropriate policies, implementation measures, and employee education Construction materials-must meet Architectural Coating Standards for VOCs (since many VOCs are air toxics) - see 63 FR 48848, 9/11/98. There are standards for the following compounds used in road construction: • Compounds for concrete curing, concrete curing and sealing, concrete protective • 1 Page E-455 coatings and concrete surface retarders • • Bituminous coating and mastic compounds for asphalt pavement sealing • Traffic marking coatings(for line painting) • Zone marking coatings (for driveway lines,parking lots, sidewalks & curbs) Construction planning: • Plan for operation needs to reduce emissions, such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV)lane,bike lane, other operation needs (see below) • Adopt a"Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan(CEMP)"to ensure that procedures for implementation of mitigation measures are adequately defined • Consult with appropriate Air Quality Management District for existing applicable requirements (e.g.,requirements of the State Implementation Plan) at beginning of project;continue periodic consultation throughout construction phase to determine if additional air quality mitigation for criteria air pollutants and/or air toxics is warranted; undertake any necessary additional air quality mitigation in an expeditious manner Operation phase- include appropriate stakeholders and government entities-ensure that construction nhase addresses these needs where necessary Transportation planning strategies as appropriate to promote: • Transportation control measures such as employer-subsidized transit passes, • telecommuting,work schedule changes, compressed work week, rideshare, parking management(e.g. reduced rates for carpools;parking cash out programs to"buy-out"employee parking spaces), roadway toll/congestion pricing(i.e., higher tolls for peak hours/solo drivers) • Intelligent transportation systems • Biking and walking alternatives,which include needs for infrastructure(paved shoulders,.adjacent paths,pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly intersections,bike parking and lockers),local transportation district support(to address logistics of bikes on buses, light-rail, etc.),and employer support(such as incentives for biking or walking,provision of showers/lockers, participation in EPA's Commuter Choice Program, see www.commuterchoice.gov) • Public education regarding personal vehicle choice and use,e.g.,the benefits of high fuel efficiency/low emissions models,proper engine tuning and maintenance, proper tire pressure, avoiding idling, limiting and combining trips 2 • Page E-456 • Possible Mitigation Strategies for Air Quality (Particulates-Related) Highway Projects Construction site: • Require permits with time and weather conditions if open burning to clear right-of-way • Require dust suppression measures on all unpaved work areas, haul out roads, borrow and waste sites, including use of dust suppressant solutions,temporary pavement, aggregate road base,and/or temporary seeding • Require procedures for loading and covering haul trucks to minimize track out and material spills in transit • Require frequent cleaning of paved roadway and paving access points Maintenance phase • Comply with existing sanding/de-icer/street sweeping requirements in local ordinances or the applicable State Implementation Plan • Develop sanding program that specifies: (1)sanding material size that will minimize re- entrainment; (2) sanding material testing procedures; (3)record keeping and reporting requirements; and(4)area of application • Institute street sweeping program that specifies frequency, equipment,record keeping and • reporting requirements, and area of application • • 3 Page E-457 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES • EPA Meeting MEETING DATE: July 15, 2004 LOCATION: FPA COOT: Carol Parr Dave Martinez. Pete Graham Stan Elmquist FHWA: Mike Vanderhoof, Melinda Castillo ATTENDEES: EPA: Robert Edgar Deb Lebow. Jeff Kintes C&B: Gina McAfee FHU: Gregg tvlugele.Art Hirsch. Kevin Maddoux PREPARER: Carter Burgess Gina McAfee COPIES: Attendees, Jerry Piffer Tom Anzia. Becky Noe. Wendy Wallach. Chris Primus, Kirk Webb. C&B File#071609 400 MEETING SUMMARY • 1 Gina began the meeting by describing the purpose which is to discuss EPA scalping comments 2 We will definitely assess the alternatives listed on page 1 of the comments and will provide travel characteristics of these. We need to make sure we compare 2030 travel times(for different alternatives) to existing travel times Is it possible to compare congestion now with what it might be after a widened I-25 is open to traffic 3 For air quality, it should not be a problem to provide any of the baseline air quality information. For MSATs, we will do the analysis as suggested in the letter We should obtain existing emissions levels. We should look at what 1-70 is doing in terms of historical emissions levels. existing and future Our biggest potential impact may be at transit stations. if we use a diesel locomotive. For Kiln)hot spots. we should do qualitative for conformity EPA is expecting a quantitative Pfvlw.hot spot modeling Jeff suggests that we use CAL3OI-IC for PM,,—we reed to change settling velocity and deposition rate or velocity PM,r) hot spots could be transit stations, maintenance facilities, interchange locations l J'1al'LAI!,r, •I#:01.1; M Jeder:ii l:•.:; . I , .:in; ;' ,rt;gym. I(•„Iur4nJf t!:r,+;:.,; I'au 'rig lilt in • Page E-458 Nom-I 1 1-25 F1S MEETING MINUTES EPA Infecting July 15. 2004 2 nl 3 We will form an Air Quality Working Group to meet to discuss methodology and project- specific results The NFRMPO draft 2030 Plan has some I-25 improvements in it For mitigation. we should look at cleaner diesel locomotives—there are 2010 standards we should look at 4 Hazardous waste—none of this should be a problem 5 Water quality Monitoring has been recommended by EPA This was intended to be during and post construction The intent is to commit to monitor BMPs in impaired waters This would be committed to as needed For existing conditions, we will use existing data from CDPHE and watershed agencies For sensitive streams. permanent BMPs will be recommended. consistent with MS4. • We have a concern about using the Driscoll model Art has a handout that describes his concerns It has limitations Art is proposing that we model only in situations where we are proposing to discharge into an impaired stream with no BMPs—or into a stream that is close to being sensitive(with no t3MPs) The model Art is recommending is a spreadsheet that breaks the river down into different segments. calculates mass. includes BMPs. and results in an indication of whether or not there is a potential to exceed a standard FHWA has been working on alternative ways to model water quality They are planning to come up with a different approach Mike recommends we wait until after the upcoming course to decide for sure on the water quality modeling approach For adaptive management we could commit to monitoring, agency roles. and BMPs It is okay with EPA to use a spreadsheet model Art should talk to Gordon McEvoy and Tom Boyce about this spreadsheet model. We will wait until after the course has been held and then Art will prepare a proposed methodology 6 For wetlands, we are doing a merger with 404 so will be closely evaluating avoidance alternatives We will plan to delineate wetlands prior to defining DEIS alternatives, 7 For maintenance and construction, these suggestions came as a result of T-REX problems. Mag chloride may become an issue CDOT is doing a new study on maa chloride impacts Temperature monitoring can be done to determine when to apply mag chloride Page E-459 NORTH 125 • EIS MEETING MINUTES EPA Meeting July 15, 2004 3 of 3 8. For EJ. we are not planning to do as exhaustive a study as 1-70. 9. Regarding the Delphi Plus technique. we could contact CSU. the 1-25 Corridor Plan group. the LUTRAQ—for ideas on the expert panel. If need to,we can break this into two panels. We may consider forming a Land Use Working Group to provide ongoing guidance. We are not going to be making recommendations to locals about how to modify their comprehensive plans In New Hampshire. there were issues about how many wetland acres are impacted and what should be the mitigation commitment We will be developing a --smart growth' component to our Congestion Management Alternative. • 1: "rn^•;�r:aUrn:,11%1cu9. ,)r^:r:rs: -,.:3c•yr mif:Vo,f r7:r'1%1 ,.:•'. • Page E-460 State of Colorado • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION r. O7. Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537.8885 nn..,1uwra,,,,X%,a,,,f,N January 21,2004 Steve Fender Principal Regional Inspector Federal Railroad Administration 555 Zang Street, Suite 263 Denver,CO 80228 Re: North I-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr.Fender: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: • I. Taking no action. 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly I-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and mil technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 pan.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, Thjikadir David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. I-25 Front Range EIS cc: Project File • Page E-461 - 111 ® •'"� �/\,�� ,NORTH I.25FR0NT RANGE EIS nna Meeting Minutes Project: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Purpose: Federal Railroad Administration Scoping Meeting Date Held: March 1, 2004 Location: FRA Offices, 555 Zang Street, Lakewood Attendees: FHWA: Jean Wallace FRA: Steve Fender FTA: John Dow CDOT: Dave Martinez C&B: Gina McAfee, Danielle Smith, Paul Brown, Craig Gaskill FHU: Tom Anzia Copies: Attendees, Holly Miller, File#071609.400 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: 1. Gina gave a very brief discussion introduction to the project. • 2. FRA is an enforcement agency—primary safety enforcement. They also serve as liaison to passenger rail projects. Commuter rail is an area of interest, particularly in shared freight/passenger corridors. FRA can help if we need help negotiating with the railroads. FRA will get more involved as we move into engineering. 3. Steve went through a PowerPoint presentation (attached). 4. The Denver office is a part of Region 6. The Regional Administrator is in Kansas City. 5. They also regulate tourist-type railroads called excursion railroads—like the Georgetown Loop or the Durango to Silverton line. 6. FRA designates corridors for high-speed rail. They are funding three corridors for maglev back east. 7. PUC regulates surface grade crossings(new ones and closures of public ones) and state safety oversight. 8. FRA will be a Cooperating Agency. We will send a letter of invitation. 9. We will include them on our mailing lists for meetings, especially those related to rail engineering. 10. The whistle blowing proposed rule shortens the warning time to 20 seconds. Communities can install gates with raised medians or alternate safety measures (physical upgrades, signage, education) to reduce the risk threshold. This means no whistles except for other safety requirements. There is a risk index calculator. JA_Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\FRA scoping 030104j.tloc • Page E-462 U.S. Department Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration Region VIII Colorado Division of Transportation 216 Sixteenth St.,Suite 650 565 Zang St.,Room 250 Denver.Colorado 80202 Lakewood,Colorado 80228 (903)844.3242 (303)969-6730 c� s4,� u !WAR 2004 March 10,2004 •G. Mr. Steve Fender ^aita �� Chief Inspector Federal Railroad Administration 555 Zang Street,#263 Lakewood,CO 80228 Re: North I-25 Front Range EIS Cooperating Agency Agreement • Dear Mr.Fender: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)Region 4,are initiating an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)for the North I-25 Front Range area,which includes area from Denver Union Station to Fort Collins,to improve transportation and transportation linkages. The transportation improvements may require FRA action and we are requesting that you be a cooperating agency. Your agency's involvement should entail those areas under its jurisdiction and no direct writing or analysis will be necessary for the documents preparation. The following are activities we will take to maximize interagency cooperation: 1. Include you on mailing lists for coordination meetings. 2. Invite you to meetings related to rail engineering. 3. Consult with you on any relevant technical studies that will be required for the project and share information that may be useful to other studies in the area(US 36, Boulder/Longmont Feasibility Study and North Metro study). 4. Organize joint field reviews with you; if requested. 5. Provide you with project information, including study results. 6. Encourage your agency to use the above documents to express your review on subjects within your jurisdiction or expertise. • Page E-463 (fLEBCd 66?? E99 cb:L0 73, LE aHid 7. Include information in the project environmental documents that cooperating agencies need to • carry out their NEPA responsibilities and any other requirements regarding jurisdictional approvals. We also request that you be available to help us negotiate with the railroad entities within the study area if needed. You have the right to expect that the EIS will enable you to carry out your jurisdictional responsibilities. Likewise,you have the obligation to tell us if,at any point in the process, your needs are not being met. We expect that at the end of the process the EIS will satisfy any rail safety compliance requirements including those related to project alternatives, environmental consequences and mitigation. We look forward to your response to this request and your role as a cooperating agency on this project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies' respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this EIS,please contact Jean Wallace(FHWA) at(303)969-6730 extension 382 or John Dow(FTA)at(303)844-3243. Sincerely yours, . . a etotaffillifir) Division A 'strator Regional Administrator cc: Mr. Dave Martinez,CDOT Region 4 / • Mr.Bob Garcia, CDOT Region 4 Mr. Stanley Elmquist,CDOT Region 4 Ms. Carol Parr,CDOT Region 4 Mr. Brad Beckham,CDOT EPB Mr.Dave ICrutsinger,RTD Mr. John Dow,FTA File J:1 Transportation\071609.400\manage\corr\Agency\Coop Agency Agreement_FRA.doc •i Z0'd VI:4 V00Z 12 6820-699-046:xeJ ONd13A01 1yj Page E-464 •C U.S.Department Region VI DOT Building of Transportation 901 Locust Street,Suite 464 Federal Railroad Kansas City,MO 64106 Administration April 5,2004 Mr. William C. Jones Federal Highway Administration Colorado Division Administrator 555 Zang Street- Ste. 250 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Jones: Regarding your correspondence dated March 10, 2004, directed to Steven Fender, the Federal • Railroad Administration's (PRA) Chief Inspector at the Lakewood District office. I understand that Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for the I-25 corridor is being developed. As has been past practice at Denver and in western FRA Region 6, and according to FRA's previous interdepartmental agreements,we formally agree to support these studies as required. We recognize that we may be quite interested in this corridor due to the possibility that passenger rail maybe a preferred transportation alternative. FRA is also aware of and preparing for our safety regulation and related responsibilities if these projects develop as anticipated. As has been past practice, Steven Fender will be the principal contact for FRA on issues such as this. He will continue to manage FRA involvement there as appropriate with the resources he has at his disposal. He will also communicate with our passenger rail team at FBA's Office of Railroad Development and involve them as necessary. Please feel free to continue to communicate with Steve at the Denver FRA office and continue with the relationship that now exists. Should you need assistance froth me at any time, please feel free to call. S i -: e1, • e J. Tisor ahal Administrator • .. g.._.on 6 Page E-465 State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pro DOT • Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537-8885 „Q,,,,w,,,.,as,w�xw`r.,,m January 21,2004 Alison Deans-Michael U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 755 Parfet,Suite 361 Lakewood,CO 80215 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Ms.Michael: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: 1. Taking no action. • 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, A. David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. 1-25 Front Range EIS cc: Project File w • Page E-466 ► '\ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Colorado Field Office 755 Parfet Street.Suite 361 Lakewood. Colorado 30215 IN REPLY REFER TO• ES/CO: ER04/0004 Mail Stop 65412 David Martinez Resident Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation. Region 4 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland, Colorado 30537 Dear Mr. Martinez. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your Notice of Intent(NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) for transportation improvements between Denver and Fort Collins in Denver, Boulder, Broomfield. Adams, Larimer, and Weld Counties.Colorado. • We have comments regarding threatened,endangered. and candidate species: migratory birds: and highway permeability to wildlife. Several species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) (Act)which may be affected by the,proposed action may occur along the corridor. These species include the Prehle's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the bald eagle (Haliaeerus leucucephulus),the Um ladies'-tresses orchid(Spiranrhes diluvialis).and the Colorado butterfly plant(Guura neomexicana ssp. coloradansis). The black-tailed prairie dog t Cynonivs ludovicianus) is a Candidate species under the Act and the Service is interested in their protection and avoiding adversely impacting their habitat to a degree that they would need to be listed and, therefore. protected tinder the Act. We are also concerned about the affects of depletions to the South Platte River system on downstream species. Transportation projects typically cause depletions through use of water for compaction and dust control,although other uses are conceivable. Impacts to all listed species will need to be addressed in the EIS and consultation under section 7 of the Act may be necessary. In addition, all native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. and impacts to them will need to be anticipated and addressed in the EIS. Maintaining or improving the permeability of highways to all wildlife species is becoming of increasing concern to all wildlife resource agencies. including the Service. We would like to see wildlife movement across the 1-25 corridor and animal-vehicle collisions addressed in the ES. • Page E-467 David Martinez Pagel In your N0I you mention that a new highway alignment is an alternative. Depending on site- • specific conditions and plans for the old highway,new alignments are in general not preferred in terms of impacts to wildlife. We look forward to coordinating with you on this alternative. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project, and we look forward to working with you as it progresses. If the Service can be of further assistance,please contact Alison Deans Michael at 303 275-2378. Sincerely. Susan C.Linner Colorado Field supervisor pc: FWS-R0(Connie Young-Dubovsky) BFA(ERT) OEPC,Denver(Regional Environmental Officer) Michael Ref•Alison1ERs • 9IA3TIr) 110H'JldfigS13d ' 5002 t E VW ...21&,[1115 I Page E-468 Carters-Burgess October 27, 2004 Jan Fritch District Conservationist Platte Valley District 57 West Bromley Lane Brighton, CO 80601 RE: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Dear Mr. Fritch Carter& Burgess, Inc. is assisting the North 1-25 Front Range EIS project in developing inter- regional solutions to traffic congestion, mobility problems, safety issues, and air quality problems between the northern Colorado populat ion centers and the Denver metropolitan area. • Specifically, the purpose of the study is to investigate a range of transportation alternatives for moving people, goods, and information throughout the region. These alternatives are to include highway improvements, inter-city passenger rail alignments and technologies, and bus and other modal options. The project area is from US 287 and S H 119 in the west to US 85 in the east; from SH 14 in the north to SH 7 in the south, but the southern boundary includes Denver Union Station for the consideration of passenger rail options. The legal sections for the study area include: R650W R660W R670W R680W R690W R700W 45678916 1239101112 13 14 15 16 17 TAN ALL 18 19 20 21 ALL ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 7.1S 5678171819 ALL ALL 15 16 17 18 19 12345910 20 3C 31 20 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 f • Page 1 of 3 Page E-469 Carter: ,Burgess • , October 28, 2004 Tim Carney District Manager Longmont& Boulder Districts 9595 Nelson Road, Box D Longmont, CO 80501 RE: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Dear Mr. Carney Carter& Burgess, Inc. is assisting the North I-25 Front Range EIS project in developing inter- regional solutions to traffic congestion, mobility problems, safety issues, and air quality problems between the northern Colorado populat ion centers and the Denver metropolitan area. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to investigate a range of transportation alternatives for • moving people, goods, and information throughout the region. These alternatives are to include highway improvements, inter-city passenger rail alignments and technologies, and bus and other modal options. The project area is from US 287 and S H 119 in the west to US 85 in the east;from SH 14 in the north to SH 7 in the south, but the southern boundary includes Denver Union Station for the consideration of passenger rail options. The legal sections for the study area include: R650W R660W R670W R680W R690W R700W 45678916 1239101112 - T.1N 17 18 19 20 21 13 28 29 30 31 32 ALL ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 33 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 T.4S 5678171819 ALL ALL 15 16 17 18 19 12345910 20 30 31 20 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 • Page 1 of 3 Page E-470 ij Carteraurgess October 27, 2004 Jeanene Hess, District Manager Fort Collins District Office 415 N College Ave., #3 Ft Collins, CO 80524 RE: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Dear Ms. Hess Carter& Burgess, Inc. is assisting the North 1-25 Front Range EIS project in developing inter- regional solutions to traffic congestion, mobility problems, safety issues, and air quality problems between the northern Colorado populat ion centers and the Denver metropolitan area. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to investigate a range of transportation alternatives for • moving people, goods, and information throughout the region. These alternatives are to include highway improvements, inter-city passenger rail alignments and technologies, and bus and other modal options. The project area is from US 287 and S H 119 in the west to US 85 in the east; from SH 14 in the north to SH 7 in the south, but the southern boundary includes Denver Union Station for the consideration of passenger rail options. The legal sections for the study area include: R650W R660W R670W R6B0W R690W R700W 45678916 1239101112 17 18 19 20 21 13 T.1N 28 29 30 31 32 ALL ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 33 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 T.1S 5678171819 ALL ALL 15 16 17 18 19 12345910 20 30 31 20 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 • Page 1 of 3 Page E-471 Carter Burgess • October 27, 2004 Nick Hoban District Conservationist West Greeley District Office 4302 W 9th St. Rd. Greeley, CO 80634 RE: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Dear Mr. Hoban Carter& Burgess, Inc. is assisting the North 1-25 Front Range EIS project in developing inter- regional solutions to traffic congestion, mobility problems, safety issues, and air quality problems between the northern Colorado populat ion centers and the Denver metropolitan area. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to investigate a range of transportation alternatives for • moving people, goods, and information throughout the region. These alternatives are to include highway improvements, inter-city passenger rail alignments and technologies, and bus and other modal options. The project area is from US 287 and SH 119 in the west to US 85 in the east;from SH 14 in the north to SH 7 in the south, but the southern boundary includes Denver Union Station for the consideration of passenger rail options. The legal sections for the study area include: R650W R660W R670W R680W R690W R700W 45678916 1239101112 T.1N 1718192021 13 28n 30 31 32 ALL ALL ALL 20 21 22 23 24 33 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 T.1S 5678171819 AlL ALL 15 16 17 18 19 12345910 20 30 31 20 21 22 23 24 11 12 13 14 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 Page 1 of 3 •� Page E-472 • 1 Carter-Burgess North I-25 Front Range EIS R650W R660W R670W R680W R690W R700W 1234891011 12 13 14 15 16 T.2N 5678171819 ALL ALL 17 19 20 21 22 25 35 36 20 29 30 31 32 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 123456789 10 11 12 14 15 1231f1213 T.2S 16 17 18 19 20 ALL 14 24 25 21 22 27 28 29 30 3132 33 123491011 456781718 12 13 14 15 16 T.3N 19 20 29 30 31 ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 32 26 27 28 33 34 35 36 123458910 11 12 13 14 15 T.3S 4567818 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 123456789 123491011 1011 12 13 14 1213141516 T.4N 6 15 16 17 18 19 ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 • 20 21 22 23 27 26 27 28 33 34 28 29 30 31 32 35 36 33 34 123491011 4567891617 12 13 14 15 16 T.5N 18 19 20 21 29 ALL ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 30 31 32 26 27 28 33 34 35 36 1 23491011 5678171819 12 13 14 15 16 T.6N 20 28 29 30 31 ALL ALL ALL 21 22 23 24 25 32 33 26 27 28 33 34 3536 1 2 3 10 11 12 T.7N 6 7 18 19 29 30 ALL ALL ALL 13 14 15 22 23 3132 24 25 26 27 28 33 34 35 36 4567891015 16 17 18 19 20 1 11 12 13 14 15 T.BN 21 22 23.25 26 ALL ALL 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 27 34 35 36 32 33 34 35 36 19 20 21 25 26 24 25 26 27 28 T.9N 31 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 32 33 34 35 36 36 Page 2 of 3 Page E-473 Carter:Burgess • North 1-25 Front Range EIS We have already collected all of the digital soil mapping for the project area. Enclosed for your review is a map of the project study area. Could you please send us a list of any soils that are Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Im portance, and/or Farmland of Local Importance for your jurisdiction within the study area. The information can be sent or faxed to the following address: Carter& Burgess, Inc. Attn: Kirk Webb 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Fax: 303.820.2401 Also, please send a request for payment of any fees along with the products. If you have any questions, or need further information, please call me at 303-223-5852, or email me at webbkw(a,c-b.com. Sincerely, Kirk Webb Environmental Planner Enclosure • cc: file#071609.401 J:1_Transportation\071609.4001managelcorr`Farmlandtrarmlandregltr Platte Valley 10.27.04tdg.doc Page 3 of 3 • Page E-474 United States Department of Agriculture • 4N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service Phone:303-659-0525 57 West Bromley Lane Fax:303-659-1768 Brighton,Colorado 80601-2697 October 29,2004 Kirk Webb Carter&Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver,Colo 80202 Kirk, As per your request,enclosed are list containing Prime and Important Farmlands soils. I have included lists for the entire project area. The approximate area that is under my work unit are the parts that are in Adams County and the Southern part of Weld County up to about Gilcrest. There are no Unique Farmlands within my work unit and no identified Farmlands of Local Importance that I am aware of Project parts not in this area are serviced from other Natural Resources Conservation Service offices. The location of these offices can be found at the web site listed below. On the bottom left of the screen click on Find A Service Center. • The information found on the enclosed sheets is available on the web at; htto://www.co.nres.usda,gov under Quick Access locate eFTOG Section 11 Soils Information Click on the County you want information for Click on Soils Reports On Survey Area screen Click on Generate Reports On Map Unit screen Click on Select All Under drop down menu labeled please select the report that you would like to generate, Click on Prime&Important Farmlands Click Generate Report Please note for Weld County there are choices for Northern Part&Southern Part. Hopefully this covers the information you requested. anFitch District Conservationist • The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,maintain,and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page E-475 11/01/2004 09:23 FAX 9703510392 USDA GREELEY Ski? CNT Zj. 001/004 r a, United States Department of Agriculture • oNRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 970-356-8097.Office Greeley Field a Office 970-351-0392-Fax 4302 W 9 Street Rd - www.co.usda.gov Greeley,Colorado 80634-1317 jon.widce@co.usda.gov FAX COVER SHEET From: Jon Wicke Date: November 1, 2004 District Conservationist NRCS—Greeley Field Office To: Kirk Webb, Environmental Planner Carter& Burgess, Inc. Fax: (303)820-2401 Pages(including this one): 4 COMMENTS: Faxing a copy as requested of the Prime and other Important Farmlands reports for Weld County, from both the North and South Weld County Soil Surveys. Note that these reports are now readily available for public use online, for all counties in • Colorado. Following are instructions for accessing this data online: - Go to www.co.nres.usda.gov - Click on the Technical Resources tab. - Click on Colorado electronic Field Office Technical Guide/eFOTG. - Click on the county you would like to access. - On the Left Hand side of the page, click on Section II. - Click on Soils Information. - Scroll down and click on the County you need to collect data for. - Click on Soil Data Download and Soil Reports - Click on the Soil Survey you need information from. - Click on Generate Reports - In the resulting table, highlight particular soils, or click on Select All if you want to access data for all Soils. - In the selection box, select the report you need, such as "Prime and Other Important Farmlands" - Click on Generate Reports. This could be helpful, since much of the soils information is readily available,you may be able to avoid sending letters out and awaiting the return of needed information. If you have any questions, give me a call at (970)356-8097, x3, or email me at Jon.W icke(tDco.usda.gov. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people • conserve,maintain,and Improve our natural resources and environment An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 11/01/2004 EON 10:23 ETX/RX NO 53711 a 001 Page E-476 1.1/01.;2004 09:24 FAX 9703510392 USDA GREELEY SRV CNT 002/004 • Prime and other Important Farmlands Weld County,Colorado,Northern Part Map symbol Map unit name Farmland classification 1 illtvapTine'san9y4pe�nr o tdr8 ,�•fc`Mhslopea' n r :'', _ . � FaFiil�>♦}1asYallateJride Important a".; •'•. 4 Ascalon fine sandy loam 0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland at-statewide Importance i5 0xessenoarfdy.Wein,0Yo3peruei ts(ppee R wSdPJ Porten.'Fe�tandofat to " m ce"°' i 17 Bushmen fine sandy loan,0 to 3 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 20 • ,Haye'tson loam,t50 o 0"4404swpes`. ."... .....' Farml sd'of itateJifd9 lnportance... t percent slopes 34 Mentor sandy loam,0 to 6 Farmland of statewide importance li 44 ,. OIney7lnesapdy,l0atiy0to6hers!,ant:slppes, :.Fmrriilerrdwsibieivtdrakttormncp,., 49 Paoli fine sandy loam,0 to 8 percent slopes Farmland ofstalewide importance 58 1t65ebtd fimrai " 'loam U1c6" ..,!dy. : .geraeilt stopgs ' `.. ".. � FaFfil4nd ofsta'1sVridlYiryprfr{arlc0;..3 61 Stoneham fine sandy loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 64 Te¢yA8'nllyloen-016'1peroerltsloiks FgrrtildndofatateWld6'inportance '� 73 Vona sandy loam,u to 3 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 75 4i+eges fipd sarleyaoam;Otd 6'pgrcedlslopes. -: + '. > :::Fanrdand ofalsiewlds importeriuq:: :. 80 Mentor sandy loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 2.; Daoand:day Foam:0 la, petirintslopes .,.:'.. Ai�nlein}mli9ttd If;irrigalad 30 Keith loam,0 to 6 percent stenos Primo farmland If In -leafed ipatad 40 ._:,: Nunn%be < ... . m 010 B perdamalhpec f � ... • %�a BAmetarMaiidW;k?igaled• • ,. . . .. 41 _ Nunn clay loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Primefartnland fti gated 54 PfabiAr loam 4m�pBrparp slhpes >i ,��. ,.. " • ,., .,.... -:..�... • Pr7m(•_i"armfan�y[rz�r']g'afed ti::-? :.. 77 Weld loam,0 to 6 percent slopes Primefanniand irrigated •70, -:. .n#cat4010Pdt,4bSpm t%tstopes 2lr h4.•1 61- F .tyrti+ie:erintend If lrtl9atei , 83 Wages loam,0 to 6 percent elopes Prime farmland if imgated 86 Playas - Pdmp(p703ilia iirolededirom ilt oding orndt •, WflhiYfib°ddu dip Oregioviing aeason� , USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Tabular Data Version:1 Tabular Data Version Dale:04/13/2004 Page 1 of 1 • 11/01/2004 MON 10:23 [TX/RX NO 53711 l 002 Page E-477 I 11/01/2004 09:24 FAX 9703510392 USDA GREELEY SRV CNT , 6 QJ 003/004 IIIPrime and other Important Farmlands Weld County,Colorado,Southern Part - Map symbol Map unit name Farmland classification 34' . 'kin!loam S1oo.perd¢rd eiopps - ...:. .iorwilpfidof; - 38 Nelson firm sandy loam,3 to 9 percent slopes mportce , '" '84; - Thadalundloan, 1 tq.3. Farmland of local Importance 69 ent slopes opeiitpa's, Feinilartl of local;importance Vaient sand 0 to 3 percent - " 72. Vona.loamysand;U'(u3- Famdend o(lorsl importance 7 - •.- ., hrl*hdblif901{inp91tan0e .+!';,:Ascalon sandy loam,5 to 9 percent slopes Farmland of statewide importance 16 ; `Colby loam 3to5htlneehlal 28 � . ppgeiti%,,. .. . - ti:,., Feml�nd , Holdt silty clay,3 to 5 percent slopes bfstatewideIrrportnce:.. 3,' Kim Iga[I%,Sip 5litik ill.S.opas" Fanreand o/alatewide Importance 37 Nelson fine sandy loam,0 b 3 percent sepd'o[�slatowid`s'ffnpo/lence- ., lopes Farmland of statewide importance .. . 48. OlneyY:loamy aand,.3tbj$ysrpenfp(opes ". 45 AMa -"P;' RfsWewid'14:ih1Po *;:fine sandy loam,3 to 5 percent slopes Farmland of statewide Importance 49 : O$goad-sans,6 fo'3 percent'4oP9a':,-... .. .. . ;Farmland of statewide`,importance 52 Otero sandy loam,310 5 percent slopes � ' ' Farmland of statewide Importance 517 6 Ulm llam,3 to,5 to percent slopesclay - Hance . 75. Vona Ea' loam.0 tq'f rdenlslopes Farmland of clalewideimporlanca Ulm ' '� p° � � ., FarinIaiIa ofiaa}awIGalrporiadce 76 Vona sandy loam,l to 3 percent slopes g0 Weldbarr 3 toy Farmland ofstatewyaImportance patcen[°�opds: ; ,. . � : . :, ['a� mSiand .. 83 Wile y•Colby complex,3 lo 5 percent slopes 9fsla6avatle iitpof}ttnde:' 87 Plf iei:5ne.erindy foam" ° Farmland of statewide Importance 3 Aquolls and Aquems,gravelly substratum Pri arml nt Vdrain d eDe Prime farmland If drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing • 4 • Aquot ah Aquepke ilaadad • + season r PrYm�ergttff Linea rdo dedidPmlepfad hem+ .• i w reh0eri0y'fi0adstlitlu�ng ilMgrowlgg. 1 Alrvan loam,0 to 1 percent slopes 2 AHVeritbam 1103- s ''.? Prime fannlarM if Intgatetl - PeO{ent lopes � - � 5 Ascalon sandy loam,1 to 3 percent slopes �mef�lnd ifirigated . . , C..; Aaialod'sefl 'lbeln" td$pamer(f alp _ Prime farmland if irrigated 8 Ascalon loam,0 to I percent slopes r'.7. .v,:!;t„ I'inland If litigeQ ,, .�+ g Prime farmland If litigated �idd'loem 1.b.3 p"e[camtslopes. ';�' - E+rilndfd[ml�:li��fli(idfetl . _ 10 Sant-card sandy loam percent slopes ones tl'.. = - Pdmafarmland rf irrigated 12 Srosser sandy loam.Ito3percent h .. ^+9 '5foasei.aandylpain Oid:t perce't�t.s10 s ,, P farmland Nk sled t , PrimefamdandHMgated " .,,, Caay:,aan,:Ow.i psicenitetopas% 15 Colby loam,l to 3 percent slopes Pelfarill[p1M ifirrigate'd' ' - 19Prime farmland if im led Colpnbb`day barn,0 tg l:pemeht stapes 20 Colombo clay loam,1 to 3 Prim farmland ifirrigated percent slopes ....• . ., •. 21 . ' Dacon°cla: Prime farmland if irrigated y Igam,0 to'1 percanFslopes ,:' - 1 Prime fBeMghO it urlpa(ad • 22 Dacono day loam 1 to 3 percent slopes ... , - 23'' - • Frnl Cdylnb loarp Gjo t'Pafbard.yii,es:.:. Prime-farmland af,totaled 24 Fort Collins loam,1103 - Prime;farmfaigli,l Igaied ' •28 . _ Have Percent slopes Pnme farmland if irrigated rpua;loam O tar Y:{1§rcent shpes J' ;.. ... 26 Have on loam 7 to 3 percent slopes fa m1 rid r irrigated ' Nov 27 M Prime farmand N irrigated stdydlay S to3 pefGehts�dpes ,, • 29 Julesburg sandy loam,0 to I - .Prima farmland,if edP percent slopes Prima farmland HIM irrigated 30:;.; ... Jukcbuq}.'ba?idl'idami T-to3+pefcemsTjpea 9 31 tom loam,0 to 1 percent slopes '1 Primefarmlandif Imp6ted - - PrimefartNantldkrigated - USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Tabular Data Version:2 Tabular Data Version Date:10/07/2004 Page 1 of 2 • 11/01/2004 NON 10:23 [TX/RX NO 53714 0 003 Page E-478 1.1/01/22004 09:25 FAX 9703510392 USDA GREELEY SRV CNT @1004/004 4 . I • Prime and other Important Farmlands • Weld County,Colorado,Southern Part - Map symbol Map unit name Farmland classification - 32 : ..(Ornloarn 10 1 3.peeieptdtopea..t •Prima tminnO0ifirfigatea ' • 39 Nunn loam,0 to I percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 40 ' Nrnitloam Ito 3percentsfopes:A. Frlm¢'Fanntehd if Infgaied : 41 Nunn clay loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland it Irrigated 42 NUM..day ldani 1.to_3:perceplslppge - Prime fatrland iflingated 43 Nunn loamy sand,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated 44 Olneyfoamy sand,t to 3percent sloped' -. :L,. Prime farmland If Irrigated --.> . 46 Olney fine sandy loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prase farmland if Irrigated 47 F11,rregItpesandylpam;_1 td'sperwnislopes ,P,rt;meatirdaMylf- iigaled" 50 Otero sandy loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland if irrigated 51, oteroaseddy loam 4'id:3 f? itsioies . . . Prtlile'fa(mland1'Irdgated 54 Paoli loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Prime farmland If Inigated 55'' Pediloam Ito 3;percent stopes',: Prime farmlartdigi igate4 ., •, •. 66 Ulm day loam,0 to 3 percent slopes Prime farmland If Irrigated 76 �,.. . Weld"loam 0totpe�gradiopea.,'.;' ;:. , _'„„ 1?fmi9 famrfahOlM9etay - :... • 79 Weld loam,1 to 3 percent slopes Prime farmland if Irrigated 81 . 'Wray-colby oompleui3Oto Y:Srcant;s di s j.-:` "-,.:1:!" if nlgoiatl .. . fm. 82 Wdey-Colby complex,l to 3 percent slopes Prime farmland If irrigated s4 Playas • _ • - Pdmelarmlandd pltteDgilifrom flooding or po't. ; "` friaiA INWao.0 `dudmgthBproyitit risen • USDA Natural Resources Tabular Data Version:2 a Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date:10/07/2004 Page 2 of 2 • 11/01/2004 M0N 10:23 LTX/RX NO 5371] 1004 Page E-479 Carter :Burgess Consultants in Engineering,Architecture. Planning and the Environment MEMO TO: Jan Fritch— NRCS District Conservationist DATE: September 4, 2007 MAILING ADDRESS: Brighton Service Center 57 W Bromley Ln Brighton, CO 80601-3025 FROM: Shonna Sam SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS Project No.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Wendy Wallach; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farm land that have been identified in the North 1-25 DE IS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Shonna Sam, AICP •', Carter& Burgess, Inc. Environmental Planner 303-223-5831 shonna.sam o(�.c-b.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encom passes the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington N orthem and Santa Fe(BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP RR) routes on the east(Figure 1). Two multi-modal build packages(Packages A and B)are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT)on three different alignments. • Carter a Burgess.Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (3031 820-5240 Page E-480 • Carter Burgess Consultants in Engineering,Architecture, Planning and the Environment MEMO TO: Boyd Byelich—NRCS District Conservationist DATE: September 4, 2007 MAILING ADDRESS: Longmont Service Center 9595 Nelson Road Ste D Longmont, CO 80501-6359 FROM: Shonna Sam SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS Project No.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Wendy Wallach; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farmland that have been identified in the North 1-25 DE IS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: • Shonna Sam, AICP Carter& Burgess, Inc. Environmental Planner 303-223-5831 s h o n na.s a m(W c-b.c om PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encom passes the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east(Figure 1). Two multi-modal build packages(Packages A and B)are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit(BRT)on three different alignments. • Carter&Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page E-481 • Carter Burgess Consultants in Engineering,Architecture, Planning and the Environment MEMO TO: Todd Boldt— NRCS District Conservationist DATE: September 4, 2007 MAILING ADDRESS: Fort Collins Service Center 2150 Centre Ave B Idg A, Suite 116 Fort Collins, CO 80526-8121 FROM: Shonna Sam SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS Project No.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Wendy Wallach; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farmland that have been identified in the North I-25 DE IS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Shonna Sam,AICP • Carter& Burgess, Inc. Environmental Planner 303-223-5831 shonna.samac-b.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encom passes the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe(BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east(Figure 1). Two multi-modal build packages(Packages A and B)are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT)on three different alignments. • Carter a Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page E-482 Carter Burgess Consultants in Engineering,Architecture, Planning and the Environment MEMO TO: Jon Wicke— NRCS District Conservationist DATE: September 4, 2007 MAILING ADDRESS: Greeley Service Center 4302 West 9th Street Road Greeley, CO 80634-1317 FROM: Shonna Sam SUBJECT: North 1-25 EIS Project No.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Wendy Wallach; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farm land that have been identified in the North 1-25 DE IS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: • Shonna Sam,AICP Carter& Burgess, Inc. Environmental Planner 303-223-5831 shonna.samc-b.com a( ) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encom passes the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa F e(BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad(UP RR) routes on the east(Figure 1). Two multi-modal build packages (Packages A and B)are being evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvement being considered as a part of the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction.Transit improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT)on three different alignments. • Carter Is Burgess.Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 23001 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page E-483 FIGURE 1: REGIONAL STUDY AREA • LEGEND , ' Burlington Northern Santa Fe I w dlnp.n Great Western Railroad `'� , " , ( -----• Union Pacific Railroad + -•---• Abandoned Railroad ROWIf, \ y- y .. 1u •.n 1\ '.— i US or Interstate Highway ort Collings •,I ,' � State Highway a f I 6s titt n l,wn ° s onto s.i.n- ' rV, µ , -Tii;1. 4� , "�"a _ � asM ens ,..�. rl t J —• ---(/, Ni. ' riMW'1" '( //1"6. a ,.. %.bllvdl ::LMont IJS ' 1Y• I h1.at n. own 'I� -rl� i V tiK S ( 16"--. Boulder •— � �'� r- ¢ 7 6uh11 d MId /� .. .. .. �. C 1 _ } , , G 1 ,, d" su a ar_I A - E<tU nn'o m l r — f tn n.l tiff.. j 2 •l 1 v ' _� '1-„-. In 0 3 J 6 {�0 n ./ in North Carter&Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street.Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page E-484 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo August 2007 Page 3 • Package A would include adding one additional general purpose lane in each direction for a total of eight total lanes on 1-25. The additional general purpose lanes would extend from SH 14 to the interchange of 1-2 5 with E-470 and Northwest Parkway. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a new double-tracked corn muter rail line along the BNSF railroad right-of-way from downtown Fort Collins to the 1st and Terry rail station in Longmont. Additionally a new double-tracked commuter rail line would be built along 119 that would go south along SH 7 to connect with the North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Package A also would include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility; a commuter bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes; and commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and Denver Union Station and along E-470 from US 85 to Denver International Airport. Package B would include adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane to 1-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road,where two barrier-separated lanes woul d be added. Tolled express lanes would extend from SH 14 to 84th Avenue in Thornton. Tolled express lanes would be used by high-occupancy vehicles for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a toll, and by bus rapid transit(BRT)vehicles. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would include 12 BRT stations providing service along 1-25, along US 34 into Greeley, and along Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along US 34 and Harmony Road, the buses would travel in mixed traffic. Package B also would include a bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets. In addition, BRT service would be provided along E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport. IMPACT ANALYSIS • Impacts were calculated in Geographic Inform ation Systems(GIS) using soil data downloaded from the NRCS Soil Data Mart and the limits of construction as determined by project design. Soils within Census 2000 urbanized areas and existing highway right-of-way were extracted from the dataset and excluded from analysis. The GIS files that contain the soil data, limits of construction, and calculated impacts are included on the CD attached to this memo. Impacts were assessed for each package by component(e.g., commuter rail, commuter bus, highway widening). As the project continues, components may be repackaged or selected individually for implementation. If repackaging results in additional impacts to farmland, revised data sets and NRCS-CPA-106 forms will be provided. The total impact to farmland associated with Package A is 982.3 acres(1.8 to Farmland of Local Importance, 44.4 to Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 936.1 to Prime Farmland if irrigated or drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the gro wing season).The total impact to farmland associated with Package B is 926.8 acres(1.7 to Farmland of Local Importance, 35.7 to Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 889.4 to Prime Farmland if irrigated or drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season). Because the project crosses county boundaries, coordination is required with multiple NRCS Service Centers. Each NRCS District Conservationist will receive only the impacts that occur within the counties under their jurisdictions. In Adams County, Package A would result in impacts to 30.1 acres of Prime Farmland if Irrigated. Package B would result in 70.2 acres of Prime Farmland if Irrigated. Impacts to any other Prime or Important Farmland classifications are not anticipated. It is important to note that impacts are primarily a result of widening the existing roadway/railway and do not constitute a new alignment through agricultural land. Acres required for the project are immediately adjacent to the existing highway/railway. Impacts that would occur in Adams County are shown by location in Figure 2 for Package A and Figure 3 • Carter&Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page E-485 Page 5 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo August 2007 FIGURE 2: DIRECT FARMLAND IMPACTS— PACKAGE A • LEGEND ego Adams County Boundary -rr_h :13 . ® limits of Construction:PackageA �1_ ,!1 Impacts to Prime Farmland iirrigated j ""Highways 7 'Ili j WO �, -�j y. ",ArtedalRoads ""4 ! '-v"' l Water Bodies I'II j/ k M I ti Erie it.'"'L%:11-1fli‘::k1;r-,1-1--ql , Project Location Map 2� =�: �"'�"^ 3otacres Lafayette r Broomfield HE o ,-i Northglenn I Mlles North -- -"✓ • Carter S Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street.Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page E-486 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo August 2007 Page 6 • FIGURE 3: DIRECT FARMLAND IMPACTS—PACKAGE B LEGEND -rtde Adams County Boundary ".. 'is N i. • Limits of Construction:Package B '"`.. I`I-= - _„, �?— Impacts to Prime Farmland if Irrigated r; " '� N"ghwan 4 - .t kit /\/Arterial Roads .. Water Bodies 'j I.77 i I , 7- �t n!t: Erie r4;47w Project Location Map 702 Acres M Lafayette r• , Broomfield l =zslMiles Northglenn ` R Crider&Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street.Suite 2300 Denver.Colorado 80202 )303)820-5240 Page E-487 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo August 2007 Page 4 • for Package B. Impacts are also reported for NRCS completion and signature on Form NRCS CPA-106. Please send the completed form to: Carter& Burgess, Inc. 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Attention: Shonna Sam, AICP • • Carter&Burgess,Inc. 707 17th Street,Suite 2300 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)820-5240 Page E-488 United States Department of Agriculture � O1 ACS Natural Resources Conservation Service 970-295-5650-Office Fort Collins Field Office 970-295-5668-Fax 2150 Centre Ave Building A,Ste 116 www.co.nres.usda.gov Fort Collins,Colorado 80526 todd.boldt@co.usda.gov Tuesday, October 09, 2007 Carter& Burgess, Inc 707 17°i Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Shonna Sam Subject: North 1-25 EIS Enclosed is the completed NRCS-CPA-l06 for Larimer County. I apologize for the delay in getting this completed; 1 had an unexpected leave of absence. If you have questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Todd D. Boldt • District Conservationist Fort Collins Field Office • The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,maintain,and improve our natural resources and environment. An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page E-489 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS • PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request a 8/28/07 Sheet I Cl 1.Name of Project North 1-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency FHWA/FTA Involved 2.Type of Project Transportation 8 County and State Lorimer County,Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Dale Request Received by NRCS 2.;_Person Completing Form 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4 Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size (1110.the FPPA does not apply•Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES ® NO ❑ S `�7 `' `,/ V � c�ve.5 5. Major Drop(s) .4.y „\L,,r 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA C. s.rZ:.r.h- ,T5.V).;-i..,: \I):'Sc;lc-t U,.4•/ Acres: 6j 599 53 Acres: '7/'/R % ag 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Slte Assessment System to. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS I- k5A LA I: rrYia-r` C-..Lc-I l_ c.)a PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres TO Be Converted Directly 567 480 B Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly.Or To Receive Services 125 125 C. Total Acres In Corridor 692 605 0 PART IV (To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland rj(l.3 ,-)1,Q 3 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local importanl Farmland H ) ,ci C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted . . D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value S PART V(lb be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative l value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted Scale of 0-100 Points I. 06 / d PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 11 12 III 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 6 7 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 16 17 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 1 1 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 21 24 7. Availablitit Of Farm Su..ort Services 5 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 75 86 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 100 Y`nV r/1 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site ! assessment) 180 75 86 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(rota/of above 2 lines) 260 (75 t86 0 0 1. orridor -!acted: 2. ota •ores of Farmlands to be 3.Dale Of Selection: 4, Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted try Project' YES ❑ NO 0 5. Reason For Selection: Signature of Person Completing this Part: DATE NOTE:Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor • Page E-490 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.1.91) 0 FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS Request 4 PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Re q 8/28/07 Sheel;o . 1.Name of Project North I-25 EIS 5.FH�al A ency involved 2.Type of Project Transportation B.County end State Boulder/Broomfield,Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Dale Requerec7d by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form 1 ter, F,Qyb 0 yet-I e M 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local Important farmland? YES At NO ❑ j /1�/ (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts o.'tills form). / o3 . 5. Majo r Crop(s)1 /� /� 6. Formable Land an in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of.F rmland Ass Defined in FPPA' LORD 4CF-/7 L�!1 Acres: j07) IJ z 2 , r7�3 Acres: (f O4 62 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Asse si ent System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRC 0/6 }Ni 9— Alternative Corridor For Segment PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor 0 A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 72 91 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 20 C. Total Acres In Corridor 72 111 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 61 41 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland S S C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted .0X77''0 QQ c D. Percentage 01 Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 'l, 5-Lv -�/y , PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative e-) -7 � value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) .., PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points • 1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 10 12 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 5 10 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 3 6 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 5 5 6. Creation Of Nonfarmabte Farmland 25 0 21 7. Avaitablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 5 8. On-Farm investments 20 10 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 43 74 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 r C Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a vocal Site assessment) 160 43 74 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2lrnes) 280 vs (?3g1 14 i log I 0 0 1. Corridor Se'ected. 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Dale Of Selection 4 Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Protect: YES ❑ NC ❑ 5 Reason For Selection. Signature of Person Completing this Part: IDATE III NOTE:Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor I Page E-491 I -'u U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING (Rev.19r) FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS • PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request a 8/28/07 Shaer 1 of 1.Name of Project North 1-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2.Type of Project Transportation e.County and State Adams County,Colorado PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date geque§§t Received by NRCS 2. PersonLonTleting Form Y- 6e, - 2007 J rr 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique sfatew de or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigatedr-k verage Farm Size (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES NO El 2 0 890 7P./ t! 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA C.Olan / Acres; r0 71 % 3.0 Acres: y121 72/ ./..S; 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site A sessment System 10. Dare Land Ev Nation Returned by NRCS LEsa N el I- II— 2OO7 PART ill(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor 8 Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 30 70 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 30 70 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information -� A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland p 7.00 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage O!Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted . 900 1491900 ' • D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value Q, P ID. o PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative ' value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted Scale of 0-100 Points 93 7 96--7 PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use i5 5 3 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 5 4 III 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 2 0 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 0 0 6. Creation Of Nontarmable Farmland 25 0 0 _ 7. Availablllit Of Farm Su...d Services 5 5 5 6. On-Farm Investments 20 10 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 10 10 I OTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 37 32 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) - Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 37 32 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 Nines) 260 V }32 7 kf 12,11 0 0 1. Corr:dor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Of Selection: (( 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: YES D NO Li 5. Reason For Selection: Signature of Person Completing this Part: 'DATE `-- NOTE:Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor • Page E-492 L7 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rey 141) r FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request e 8128/07 l . sheet I at 1.Name of Project North I-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FIA • 2.Type of Project Transportation 6.County and State Weld County,Colorado • PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received by MRCS 2. Person Comple• Form - /� `. 9- S-O.4 mcr/Mieh1 Mowery •+_I 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acrfs'Irrrrigated Average Farm mD Size 1/no,the FPPA does not aYES NO ❑ 346, 9� /SA' ( apply-Do not complete additional parts Of this form). 6 • 5. Major Crops) 6.'Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount ofFarmland As efined in FP A C- en . al�a4(a�SLrgo✓ Lett) tt)k•Acres: 878 101 r. .37 Acres: 478 /a / x3^7 8. Name t Lan Evaluation yste sed ' / 9. Name of Local Sift sessment Sy Wm - 10:Dale Land Evaluatiln Returned by NRCS NaiArla'A�f,Ca�{mese4hi, .der. W/0 trif Pad , e act f-$t o2 PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 313 285 ' B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 40 40 C. Total Acres In Corridor 353 325 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information • A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland %sc. 9 'd43 . 7 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local important Farmland. .27. Z a I. 9. C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted 10.000 y 0.00077 D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 0, 4)0 o y Q,10..003 7 . : PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Mantilla,Criterion Rabtive .. value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0.100 Points) -87 p S.. PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 14 14 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 9 9 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 17 17 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10, 2 2 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 15 15 7. Availablilily Of Farm Support Services 5 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 77 82 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Pan V) 100 8; es- Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 77 82 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 pe 11_4 a/ I fri- 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Dale Of Selection: 1� r 4.Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: YES ❑ NO ❑ 5. Reason For Selection: Signature of Person Completing this Part: 'DATE NOTE Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-493 U.S. Department 216 16th Street Mall,Suite 650 555 Zang Street,Suite 250 • of Transportation Denver,CO 80202 Lakewood,CO 80228 (303)844-3242 (303)969-6730 March 4, 2004 Mr. Alonzo Chalepah, Chairman Apache Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 1220 Anadarko, OK 73005 Subject: Request for Section 106 Consultation, North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement, Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Weld, Larimer, and Jefferson Counties, Colorado Dear Mr. Chalepah: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Regional Transportation District (RTD), are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) on a proposal to address transportation demand along a segment of I-25 between Denver and Fort • Collins, Colorado (please refer to the enclosed map and aerial photo). Improvements to this severely congested corridor, as well as portions of adjacent and closely related roadways and other transportation corridors, are needed in order to address substandard capacity and safety conditions in a fast-growing environment. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), FHWA, FTA and CDOT are documenting the potential social, economic and environmental consequences of this action in an EIS. The agencies are seeking the participation of regional tribal governments described in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 et seq. As a consulting party you are offered the opportunity to identify traditional cultural and religious properties, evaluate significance of these properties and how the project affects them. If it is found that the project will impact historic properties that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, your role in the consultation process includes participation in resolving how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts. With your participation in the proposed undertaking we can more effectively avoid and minimize our impacts on areas important to tribal governments. If you have interest in participating in this undertaking as a consulting party,please notify us by responding with the enclosed form by May 5, 2004. The proposed area of potential effect(APE) as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(d) for the undertaking has not been defined because of the large size of the study area. The APE will be defined later in the process and will be much smaller than the area identified on the enclosed map. A comprehensive survey and assessment of historic properties in the study area has not yet been • Page E-494 Mr.Alonzo Chalepah March 4,2004 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma page 2 • conducted. Once this task has been completed, all interested parties and consulting tribes will be apprised of the results and asked to comment. If you desire to consult, make a request to send a representative or want to provide input on the APE, please return the enclosed form as a consulting party by the above date. A part of the EIS process will be an analysis of the cumulative effects of the undertaking. This will include past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. If you have any input on issues of concern from a cumulative impact standpoint, please let us know. The North Front Range area is home to a number of American Indian people. As such, if you are aware of members of your tribe living in proximity to the study area who would be interested in participating in the NEPA consultation process on some level, please notify us so that we can facilitate that interaction. We are committed to ensuring that tribal governments are informed and involved in decisions that may impact places that have significance to your tribe. If you are interested in becoming a consulting party for the North 1-25 EIS, please complete and return the enclosed Consultation Interest Response Form to CDOT Native American liaison Dan Jepson by May 5, 2004 (the mailing address and facsimile number for Mr. Jepson are listed at the bottom of that sheet). Mr. Jepson can also be reached via E-mail at daniel.Jepson@dot.state.co.us, or by telephone at(303) 757-9631. Thank you for considering this request for consultation. • Very truly yours, William C. Jones Lee O Waddleton FHWA Division Administrator FTA Regional Administrator cc: Jean Wallace (FHWA) John Dow (FTA) Daniel Jepson (CDOT) Dave Martinez (CDOT) Bob Garcia(CDOT) Stan Elmquist(CDOT) Carol Pan(CDOT) Tom Anzia (FHU) Gina McAfee (C&B) File Enclosures • \\del-s01\jobs_Transportation\071609.400\manage\corr\Agency\Apache Tribe.Itr030404j.doc Page E-495 f �C CELIWI a� Wry' Route Slip fl �� ° Federal Highway Administration D le. Colorado Federal Aid Division MAY i ,0 2004 wr FELSBURG,HOLT&ULLEVIG Date: 5/6/2004 From: Mike Vanderhoof,Env.Program Manager (303)969-6730,ext.331 To: Dan Jepson,CDOT Environmental Programs Carol Parr,CDOT Region 4 Env. Tom Anzio,NU Gina McAfee,ea Per Your Request For Your Signature RR For Your Information Comment Per Our Conversation Take Appropriate Action Note and Return Prepare Reply for Signature of Discuss With Me For your Approval Remarks: • Attached is a copy of a letter(with attachments)dated April 20,2004,from FTA/FHWA to Ms.Maxine Natchees, regarding North I-25 Front Range EIS. Also attached is a list of Individuals who received an identical letter and copy notations were made as appropriate from the additional list attached. Attachments: 6 Copy: Jean Wallace,FHWA John Dow,FTA File 0 Page E-496 • . 0 U.S.Department Federal Highway Administration Of Transportation 555 Zang Street,Room 250 Lakewood,CO 80228-1040 Federal Transit Administration 216 Sixteenth Street,Suite 650 Denver,CO 80202.5120 April 20,2004 Ms.Maxine Natchees,Chairwoman Ulntah and Ouray Tribal Business Committee P.O.Box 190 Ft.Duchesne,UT 84026 Dear Ms.Natchees: Subject: Request for Section 106 Consultation,North I-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement,Adams, Boulder,Broomfield,Denver,Jefferson,Latimer and Weld Counties,Colorado The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)anttFederal Transit Administration(FTA),in • cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)and Regional transportation District(RID),are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)on a proposal to address transportation demand along a segment of Interstate 25 between Denver and Fort Collins,Colorado(please refer to the enclosed maps). Improvements to this severely congested corridor,as well as portions of adjacent and closely related roadways and other transportation corridors,are needed in order to address substandard capacity and safety conditions in a fast-growing environment. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations(40 CFR 1500-1508),FHWA,FTA and CDOT am documenting the potential social,economic and environmental consequences of this action in an EIS. The agencies are seeking the participation of regional tribal governments as described in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 et seq. As a consulting patty,you are offered the opportunity to identify traditional cultural and religious properties,evaluate significance of these properties and how the project might affect them. Further,if it is found that the project will impact cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and are of religious or cultural significance to your tribe,your role in the consultation process would include participation in resolving how best to avoid,minimize,or mitigate those impacts. If you have interest in this project and in cultural resources that may be of religious or cultural significance to your tribe,we invite you to be a consulting party. JWt rill/ AMERICA Page E-497 .The Area of Potential Effect(APE)for the undertaking,as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(d),has not ' been determined because of the large size of the study area,which incorporates an enormous area between Denver and Fort Collins,Colorado. The agencies intend to perform a records review to identify known historic properties within the corridor and use that information to develop and screen improvement alternatives down to those that will be evaluated in detail. An APE will be developed for each alternative that is much smaller than the area identified on the enclosed map. A comprehensive survey and assessment of historic properties within that APE will be conducted. Once this task has been completed,all interested parties and consulting tribes will be apprised of the results and asked to comment. We would appreciate any information you have that may locate cultural resources in this corridor so that they may be considered with other known resources. The BIS process will entail an analysis of the secondary and cumulative effects of the undertaking,which will include past,present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. If you have any input on issues of concern from the standpoint of secondary or cumulative impacts, please let us know. Also,the North Front Range area is home to a number of American Indian people. As such,if you are aware of members of your tribe living in proximity to the study area who would be interested in participating in the NEPA consultation process on some level,please notify us so that we can facilitate that interaction We are committed to ensuring that tribal governments are informed o1 and involved in. decisions that may impact places that have religious or cultural significance. If you are interested in becoming a consulting party for the North 1=25 EIS,please complete and return the enclosed Consultation Interest Response Form to CDOT Native American liaison Dan Jepson within 60 days of receipt(the mailing address and facsimile number for Mr.Jepson are listed at the bottom of that sheet). Mr.Jepson can also be reached via E-mail at • Daniel.JensonRdotstate.co.us or by telephone at(303)757-9631. The 60-day period has been established to encourage your participation at this stage in project development. Failure to respond within this time frame will not prevent your tribe from becoming a consulting party at a later date. However,studies and decision-making will proceed and it may become difficult to reconsider previous determinations or findings;unless significant new information is introduced. Thank you for considering this request for consultation. Very truly yours, ilarAat.e ,f0 William C.Jones O.Waddleton FHWA Division Administrator PTA Regional Administrator Enclosures cc: Ms.Betsy Chapoose,Director,Cultural Rights&Protection Office Ms.Jean Wallace,FHWA Mr.John Dow,FTA Mr.Daniel Jepson,CDOT Env.Programs Ms.Carol Parr,CDOT Region 4 Env. Mr.Tom Anzia,FHU Ms.Gina McAfee,C-B Page E-498 • FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 106 TRIBAL CONSULTATION INTEREST RESPONSE FORM PROJECT: North I-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement The Tribe[is/is not](circle one)interested in becoming a consulting party for the Colorado Department of Transportation project referenced above,for the purpose of complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). If your tribe will be a consulting party,please answer the questions below. Signed: Name and Title CONSULTING PARTY STATUS[36 CFR§800.2(c)(3)) Do you know of any specific sites or places to which your tribe attaches religious and cultural significance that may be affected by this project? Yes No If yes,please explain the general nature of these places and how or why they are significant(use additional pages if necessary). Locational information is not required. SCOPE OP IDENTIFICATION EFFORTS[36 CPR§800.4(a)(4)] Do you have information you can provide us that will assist us in identifying sites or places that may be of religious or cultural significance to your tribe? • Yes No If yes,please explain. CONPIDBNTIALITY OF INFORMATION[36 CFR§800.11(c)] Is there any information you have provided here,or may provide in the future,that you wish to remain confidential? Yes No If yes,please explain. Please complete and return this form within 60 days via US Mall or fax to: Dan Jepson,Section 106 Native American Liaison Colorado Department of Transportation Environmental Programs Branch 4201 B.Arkansas Ave. Denver,CO 80222 FAX:(303)757-9445 • Page E-499 MS.MAXINE MATCHERS MR.HOWARD RICHARDS • CHAIRWOMAN,UINTAH&OURAY CHAIRMAN MR.ROBERT TABOR 'TRIBAL BUSINESS COMMITTEE SOUTHERN UTB INDIAN TRIBE CHAIRMAN,CHEYENNE& 'TRIBAL P.O.BOX 190 P.O.BOX 737 ARAPAHO BUS COMMITTEE FORT DUCHESNE,UT 84026 IGNACIO,CO 81137 PO BOX 38 CONCHO,OK 73022 MR.BURTON HUTCHINSON MS GERI SMALL CHAIRMAN,NORTHERN CHAIRWOMAN MR.HAROLD C.FRAZIER ARAPAHO TRIBE BUSINESS COUNCIL NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE CHAIRMAN P.O.BOX 396 P.O.BOX 128 CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL FORT WASHAKIE,WY 82514 LAMB DEER,MT 59043 P.O.BOX 590 EAGLE BUTTE,SD 57625 MS.ROXANNE SAZUE MR.WILLIAM KINDLE CHAIRWOMAN PRESIDENT MR.JOHN YELLOWBIRD CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE PRESIDENT P.O.BOX 658 P.O.BOX 430 OGLALA SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL FORT THOMPSON,SD 57325 ROSEBUD,SD 57570 P.O.BOX H PINE RIDGE,SD 57770 MR.GEORGE E.HOWELL MR.HAROLD CUTHAIR MS.MARY JANE YAZZIE PRESIDENT ACTING CHAIRMAN CHAIRWOMAN PAWNEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE WHITE MESA UTE TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O.BOX 470,BLDG.64 P.O.BOX 348 P.O.BOX 7096 PAWNER,OK 74058 TOWAOC,CO 81334 WHITE MESA,UT 84511 MR.CLIFFORD MCKENZIE CHAIRMAN MR.WALLACE COFFEY .MR.CHARLES W.MURPHY KIOWA TRIBE OP OKLAHOMA CHAIRMAN,COMANCHE TRIBAL CHAIRMAN,STANDING P.O.BOX 369 BUSINESS COMMITTEE ROCK SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL CARNEGIE,OK 73015 P.O.BOX 908 P.O.BOX D LAWTON,OK 73502 FORT YATBS,ND 58538 • • Original letters maned to each WIN above Page E-500 I • MR WILLIAM L PEDRO MR JOB BIG MEDICINE NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE MR ALONZO SANKEY .CHEYENNE&ARAPAHO TRIBES CHEYENNE&ARAPAHO TRIBES NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE OF OKLAHOMA OP OKLAHOMA CHEYENNE&ARAPAHOE TRIBES/OKLA PO BOX 41 500 S LEACH,APT36 P.O.BOX 836 CONCHO OK 73022 WATONGA OK 73772 CANTON,OK 73724 MR GORDON YELLOWMAN MR OILBERT BRADY NEPA/TRANSPORTATION PLANNER TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVEREND GEORGE DAINGKAU CHEYENNE&ARAPAHO TRIBES/OKLA OFFICER NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE ROADS CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE • KIOWA TRIBE OP OKLAHOMA PO BOX 137 P.O.BOX 128 I I S N STEPHENS CONCHO OK 73022 LAME DEER M159043 HOBART OK 73015 MRHMMYARTBRBERRY MR RO8ERTGOGOLES MR HOWARD BROWN,CHAIR THPO/NAGPRA-DIRECTORECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION COMANCHE NATION OF OK NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE NORTHERN ARAPAHOS TRIBE PO BOX 908 NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE LAWTON OK 73502 POBOX396 PO BOX 9079 FORT WASHAKIE,WY 82514 ARAPAHOE,WY 82S 10 MS ALICE ALEXANDER MRNEILCLOUD MS BETSY CHAPOOSE,DIRECTOR NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE CULTURAL RIGHTS&PROTECTION TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION CULTURE PRESERVATION OFFICE OFFICE .OFFICER,PAWNEE NATION/OKLA SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE NORTHERN UTE TRIBE PO BOX 470 P.O.BOX 737 PO BOX 190 PAWNEE,OK 74058 IONACIO,CO 81B7 FT DUCHESNB UT 84026 MR TERRY 0 KNIGHT MR JIM PICOn's TIMMENT2 MAGMA REPRESENTATIVE NAGPRA REPRESENTATIVE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE INDIAN TRIBE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCE PLANNER PO BOX 102 PO BOX 590 PO BOX TOWAOC,CO 81334 EAGLE BUTTE,SD 57625 FT YATES,ND 58538 • TERRY GRAY (ROSEBUDSIOW) NAOPRACOORDIN4TOR SGUHE9ITAGECENTER BOSOM MISSION.SD 57565 List of Individuals Who Received Copies of Lettcr baud on Tribe • Page E-501 J.age , Jopson,Dartlei PEom: George baingkau[pastoro4@ebcglobal.net] • Sent: Wednesday,May 12,2004 9:25 PM To: Jepson,Daniel Subject:Impact studies These rraetspfeis,or ea.is what I am consulting you about today. State Hwy 402,US 287 to 125;Laritner County,Colo. t44"lsmntekge€1s Adam s,$ou]der,Broomfield,Denver,Lariniar and Weld Counties kowist's.$oulevatti'1'sA,$1Paso County. Colo. Powers Boulevard.under.taking is an existing road?Constptctian on widening it out? '[A!liat imsurveyecl.aiea/am you taking about?What eis do you have now?What ROW does Cl5OThave to doimprovements? bU king with:the'Eldera on this road,there would have been many sites but since the cotistrnetioncof past roads and hwy's many of the sites were destroyed and now they want to consultua?I think whatthey met was that if new reality would be disturbed out side of the ROW thep;there-wonJd needto;be an on site visit made. eF ailt ?get-The 1=25 that 4 existing now does not provide enough road way?These sobstendard'toadsyour talking about,does it mean pull-offs,road parks,rest area,loops, off and op ratpps,ai*.(4)four morel-ems? KinweiS!Molt%to be in this area up acid down the East range of Colorado, so there must be Wine sites along tins corridor.in this study area are you or CDOT asking for Tribal monitors to htlp;}vittixhis undertaking?The onlyanswerIan give now is we:want'to•be a consulting party. State'Ttwy 4O ua2s7 to 1-25:; Yes we wilibecome a consultin g party when this project is Jtn*l'?Fay:: We hope this help s..Aboth the signing o&the PEES is still in limbo'because now I am told • there are some discrepancies on our newly appointed vice-chairman,or if he can sign at all. Be safe,'Rev.baingkau 5/14/2004 • Page E-502 • �� U..S,Dt9pypent Colorado Federal Aid Division 0: to s ration. 555 Zang Street,Room 250 cd'er ' J aY Lakewood,CO 80228-1040 AdiMflon &t'9''i.4.,; July 20,2004 eriswer Ms':BlaineAtiitty Cotmell Representative V bi*Mesa lite.Tribe P.OA T jp94 Wlsite;I lesp,UT 84511 Dear.Ma Atzitty; Subject: Request for Section 106 Consultation,North 1-25 Prom Range Environmental Impact Statement,Adams, Boulder, Broomfield,Denver,Jefferson, Latimer and W cld Counti es;Colorado Tpatilt you for your request for acopycf quiAprcl.29,.2904,.consultation letter. We are eneloitag'a file Copy witha complete recipient list,location map,and tribal interest response form. As noted,the purpose offihe letter is to request participation of regional tribal governments in consultation as required by Section 106 the National Historic Preservation Act. • We look.£orward to your response. If you have any questions.or comments,please contact Mr. Miebael Vandethgof.Envhnnmental Program IVIanager,at 720-963-3013,or Mr.Dan Jepson, C IorSdooDepartmentofTransportation,at303-757-9631. Sincerely yours, �? 6 /07 Douglas Bennett (/ Acting Division Administrator Enclosures Ms..ieut Win;FHWA. ittave Becldtouse,PTA 'kr.Daniel Jepson,CD0T Env. Programs Ms.Carol Pan,CDOT Region4Env. Mi.Tom Anzia,FHU Ms;QinaMcAf'ee,C-B "nit r cur ai�nca. • Page E-503 r U:4,.pepa tmeot Colorado Federal Aid Division • OtTrt nsporfation 12300 W.Dakota Ave.,Ste. 180 TederaiBlghwav Lakewood, CO 80228.1040 Aihn[nist'ratiun July 23,2004 Mr."GardenYellowinan Pile: 14276, 13599 1`tHPAITranspoltatton Planner Choyennc.'end Arapahoe Tribes ofClldahoina Roads Consmetion Program PG,Bo* 137 Conelio.X 73724 SubjeCti ;I ecltteatffor:Sactian406.ConsiilTatione lYoitb}25 Front'.itersge-Bnviretimentai ltripaerStatement.Adams, Boulder,Oroonifield,Denver,Jefferson,Lori flier and Veld Counties.,Colorado I3ggntzst'tor Scotion:I:OEi:Gdnsultation,interstate 70 .last Corridor Environmental Impact Statement, Adams,Arapahoe and Denver Counties,Colorado Dear Mr.Yellowman: Thank you for your request for a copy of the April 20,2004 consultation letters for our NolittS 2,5'Eront Range and 170 Last Corridor Projects. We have enclosed a file copy with a • colnplete'inctprentIi.4t,location magi,Lind tribal interest response forth lbr each project. As noted,thepptposesof the letters are to request participation of regional tribal governments in con&tdfation.as inquired by Section 106 the National Historic Preservation Act. Wal'ookfonvatd.to your response.. If you have any questions or comments please eontacl Mr.Michael Vauderhoof,Environmental Program Manager at(720)963=3013 or Mr..Dan Jepson,Colorado Department of Transportation at(303)757-9631. n1e ly yDl1,t,S f � l/" Douglas Bennett Acting Division Engineer I3hclosureS. ee: th..Jyyen Wallfcc. HWA Mr.C.I,ds.Narn,PIMA :Mr:haw a«kJouse.FiA s+'(,tr:fi'alietJecno Cner;a,io:['newts 3t1:Cvljl ru,.C:nUT,t4on 4.Pke. Of4i.htcArct,e-ii 'v £:siisrnis.tin1;enottitoon6 , ri • Page E-504 • U.S.Department Colorado Federal Aid Division Of Transportation 12300 W. Dakota Ave.,Ste. 180 Federal:Highway Lakewood, CO 80228-1040 Administration July 23.2004 File: 14276, 13599 .Mr,flowt)Yi&Brown Chairman aconomie Devetopntent Commission N&-ihern Arapaho Tribe ..o.Box 9079 Arapahoe,WY 82510 Subject rPlasffelt•SMp3 f.O6100t3stitatiOnt' ori}i.i-25 datii nge:SmcMarknental:Tinpaertafereiient;Adams, boulder, Brroemtield;Denver,Jefferson,Laritner and Weld Counties,Colorado Request for Section 106 Consultation,Interstate 70 East Corridor Environmental Impact Statement, Adams,Arapahoe and DenverCnunties,Colorado D.earMr.•Brown: Thankyoir tar ymnr'cequest.for.a copy of the Apri1.20,200$consttltation..letters for our • Notithl..5 Frorit.Rang;and 110East Corridor Projects. We have enclosed a file copy with a complete recipient HO,location map,and tribal interest response form for eachproicct. As noted;the purposes of the letters ate to request participation of regional tribal governments in consullittion as,required by Section 106 the National Historic Preservation Act. We.look forward to your response. if you have thy tiuMtions'orcomments please contact 107..Micgncll F'nitderboof,.,Gnvirontnental Program Manageret(720)963-3013 or Mt.:Den Jep af;Colorado.Deparlment of Transportation at(30a)757-9631. Sincerelyeer . r'l�Gl t0 L�tit , G4.7 Douglas iiennctt Acting Division Engineer Enclosures, u; .r4%•:•jenh'WaiktC Pt]WA .ivte; 1.14110ei,L:nitC7( 4r:Ct3Ya DeckIMIStil;rA '""'M ijmiit)1cpsni,(MOT am:.Programs \fs,Caro]I'nrr,C1507'Aetr,'on 4 am.. ?ift'Gi,th&7gArtc,C-N fAc Sliarcn ul)A:CI)ot Region 6 RJ • • Page E-505 Department Colorado Federal Aid Division • OfTranspottatien 12300 W.Dakota Ave., Ste. ISO Rederet.1t7,1tway Lakewood,CO R022R-1040 AdMittisfl'atilnt July 23,2004 Mr. William L.Pedro Fi(c: 14276, 13599 IAGPRA Representative F Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes.ofOklahoma P.©..ib;41 :C.oneho,OI 73022 Suhjcot: I einest 'S,dttiditIO&ConsultatihnAlottht=^t5 ti?ontillenge.Erivisentrrental mpaatStatenitim Adams, Boulder, Broomfield,Denver, Jefferson,Larirner and Weld Counties,Colorado Rcquest.for Section 106 Consultation,Interstate 70 East Corridor Enviromnenial Impact Statement, Adams,Ar.ipahoeand.Denver Counties,Colorado Doar-rvfr.`Pedm: 'Ttiank you for your regtiest fore;copy of the April 20,2004 consultation letters for our Nab I?5°Front Range,and 170 East Corridor Projects We have enclosed a file copy with a completereeipient list,locating snap,and tribal interest response form for each project. As • noted,thepurposes of the letters arc to request participation of regional tribal governments in cbpsult4tion as.required by Section 1.06 the National 11istotic Preservation Act. We lodlt 1orwaridto your,response. If you have anyquestions or comrtieivts please contact Mt Nlicbae1 Staailerhool Enkdronaineptal Program Manager at(720)963-3013 or Mr.Dan Jepson,Colorado Department of Transportation at(303)757-9631. Sincere'',yours, lo Douglas Bennett Acting Division Engineer Etttclosinces sy.,itanWJicc,F.JWA M';C1alsnorn,ftJWA NN*�r lhive'{ieckhogse,FrA ntine:Amid 7ep»it a7Clrn'nv:Pcnrama ?itt(ArotPem,entiTntagion 9 ihiv.. Ms,d*PaMcAM G6 Ms-5henin Lip,,(7tlp'1'*eon 6 &3i • Page E-506 • FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 106 TRIBAL CONSULTATION INTEREST RESPONSE FORM IIRflJE.f; 'i NotthJa.Fr5nnRaugeEnvirgnmental Impact Statement •The't'-{'iFi:iLn4icv nl"td'f'e—X;rah r"A+n TYLi fat= Tribe is is hot](circleebite)interested in becoming a cdpsult�il°g{�ajly' ftirtheColot&do Department of Transportation project referenced above,for the purpose of comply*.MthSection.106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800),.Ifyuur.tribe will be a consulting party,please answer the questions below. Signed:N CL©CD-•flA6Tp); C"C.>»Jk Name and Title CONSULmtNt)Rtikw,S'IATtls'[36 CF)t: 800:2(0)(3)] Do ouadaaow.of:any.specifre sites or places to which your tribe attaches religious and cultural significance that t ybe'affectedhythi§proje4t? -COS No If yes,please explain the general nature of these places and how or why they are significant(use additional pages if necessary). Locetional information is not required. fa;'t;-C . orz f4VC..ST©KS /!,/lief) )td 7'y-o$& AQe#35.. .SeoPROE >;NTIFIC44toNEFFORTs{36CFR§800A(a)(4)1 :Do you bare mfpfmhtion you can provide•us thatwill assist us in identifying sites or places that may be of religious,oraultucal'signiftcanceto your tribe? Yes i . If yes,please explain. • "CO,NWDENTIALUTY OF INFORMATION(36 CPR§800,11()1 7s:11iareirty'infonnatiuit you have provided here,or may provide in the future,that you wish to terrain eblifldeinpa(? Ye No If yes,please explain. ! /= P.'•9 (, 1), G.." ,t it! Ce-ez rc t ry x4"2 CA S }'t t-, /"let Pt/GP P 7 i=n,7"L y biS cotJe& I* Al A At 'Rem N s _ Pieasecompleteend return this.form within 60 days via US Mail or fax to: Dan iepSbnt'3ectidn 106 Native American Liaison Cotorado"Depactment-of Transportation .Envirenitiental lsograms Branch '42OZ.ArliiinffiC eve. ' • " Denver,,40V.222 F1' .t (303)157-944S • Page E-507 FEDERAL•HI0fWkif ADMINISTRATION/COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • SECTION-106 TRI/gAL CONSULTATION INTEREST RESPONSE FORM PROJECT; North T-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement The Paw.rt4'KlatoeyoC owa kterrrO. Tribe fis I is not] (circle one)interested in becoming a gonsu aittif(t y fgtthe Cdlarado Department of Transportation.project referenced above,for the purpose of complyrtig with'Spclion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Aat and its implementing regulations(36 CPR 8'00); If Youart64111 be a consuldngpnrty,please answer the questions below. Signed: �t ..ttei2.yagdai Pa-co ii 2. Nahum 77-IA0 Name and Title CONSU!TINGPARTYSTATUS[36 CFR§800.2(c)(3)) Do you know.of any specific sites or places to which your tribe attaches religious and cultural significance that may be,affected*this'projeot? Yes 1No It yes,:please ettplain the general imbue of these places and how or why they are si nificant(ase:additiotial pages if necessary). Looational information is not required. Scorn OP IDENTIFICATION EFFORTS f36 CPR§800.4(a)(4)1 Do you have information you can provide us that will assist us in identifying sites or places that may he of religiiliiCorcultural significance to your tribe? as . No, Ifyes,pleaseexplain. Po5`1.7ib{e ti4f. ju.s4' port-h o Z,Ve.rr'n0re4ciytd 5. L Atat5 s COCA to '\kJe4d Coun-{{p. Ovct.Q. 14(5fart, Jot to CONFmBNTIAL1 OFINFORMATn0N[36 CFR§800.11(c)) Is therany,informatlon.youhave provided here,or may provide in the future,that you wish to remain cg,ifIdai tiUtt Yes. :No 7f yes::please explain. ?]ease Complete and return this form within 60 days via US Mail.or fax to: )J2p:de':'oti;'Sactrgd,:]!l6 Native Amerleatt Liaison I.Colotaco.Depaninent.of.Transportation .Euvirtuumuentji'Ffogrants Branch 4201 E.Athansas Ave. Aente;CO 80222 FAX:(303)7S7-9445 •,' Page E-508 ttw-3T-iab1 is:Ta FRIA-CWT INVIRRN O:. In 6RAAS f303T87414i TIE' P GOi/003 F-445 • RERALBESIT ttA7f AD'>t2CNISTRATIONIC ODORATIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BECTON 106 TRIBAL CONSULTATIONINtEREST RESPONSE FORM Manta jsjpr��athhC��I�"2"SPmntRmtgrsltsvinmm�milaw Scammcpr net .4 `t"'". yre lc w'1c Tribc9ia:al(ciacat use)tmuestnJ m becoawtga E pa ar:t Cd1oxado Depatemant of Traaspotration project referenced above,for the purpose of teargttyngwithScndorf106aof elvitow,elafi;sunitP.reservagoeAct and tt%irlIpiet ifkgreg:Istioa (36CFR Bob) IfyourIfibe wig tcai*xsot gpsrty`gIo *' . !arriheipi�estionnons below. Signed: a T{/si'"O. / r Nan6 and Tide CONsuttlrMGPARTY STATtis(36 CPR$8t10.1,(c)(3)j Do ye eImow of any speci&o silos Cr places to whichyour vibe emchvs avlgious and cultural siyniiicante that maybca lladby gas Plea? 7fea 0 IfYas,.p)paaemcpleiatheptersl'naNreefdiasptabesgadhoworwhytheyarc a ant Ns:eddit)up®1 pages itnecessery). Iaiearioaal informs issis sot requited. EOM OPIRfb NT'1FIcnTioNEnong(36 CPR$8004(4(49] Dei.yosthaveinfeYmssebeycs ioaaptavi-deusthatwOYasiinusiaideofifyiugsitesotplacasthatmaybeof ibligloural Eo_t_a1 ssgificaatc asyeutenl>e? Yee • o Eyes,please e:Pitdu. • CosasgNi arreOis.panRbTMTDN(36 CFR$800.11(cll Iatheee auyiaftam2tion'you.htvapro4ledlieee,or may pmvi4e in the fnnrr.,that you wish w tomato $14146etis(7 -'a .No E''ti t rWn.. & Jaws g+wr .4 .seep ace Grrds..- .e��rurdyp e,.rJe. — a ave. ea-, Any ' J"C,ev ar' • seISSmSe ,d+__ — . .rid ..G.1- you- An/ Mac', p, ar" 14mAg PIUts6.coiopktea'ard'[eturn this Forts wittdo 60 days*US Mail se tax to: Tlati.1 p''wn.Segloo t l6'Nativa.AvteritawLiais'on Colaii4Depan tniiviTsanepmttcioa Een-ii eelPilingmenalismb • .001:d;Ai 01411 Ave. 0100 4486.* FikN tat.3j757+9445 y. ...)�. •i '4Y `yt.I ' • •G' :39% - y � 4k .?. Page E-509 STATE OF COLORADO S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch , ') �OT 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 iriamonamiin (303)757-9259 DEPARTMENT ormnnmoer�r� January 29,2007 Ms.Georgianna Contiguglia State Historic Preservation Officer Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway Denver,CO 80203 SUBJECT: Area of Potential Effects Boundary for the I-25 North Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms.Contiguglia: This letter and the attached documentation constitute the Colorado Department of Transportation's (COT)request for your review of the Area of Potential Effects(APE)associated with the project referenced above. The undertaking proposes to improve I-25 and associated transportation corridors between the Denver metropolitan area north to the Fort Collins/Wellington vicinity. Recent commercial and residential development has resulted in increased traffic volume on the interstate and parallel roadways regionally,which requires a broad,comprehensive plan for transportation improvements system-wide. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project is presently planned to'be ready for public review in mid-2007. Area of Projected Effects(APE)Boundaries and Methodology • The Area of Potential Effects(APE)for this project was discussed with your staff at several meetings in early 2006 and further evaluated during a field trip with staff from your office and CDOT personnel on June 15,2006. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation: the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85,and State Highway 68. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along 1-25 from 84th Ave.in Thornton to State Highway I in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project,which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside of the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150 ft.buffer,-that property was also included within the APE. Commuter Rail Corridor The APE for the Commuter Rail Corridor extends along the existing BNSF railroad tracks from Fort Collins to Longmont. From Longmont,it follows the new Longmont North Metro alignment eastward along the north side of Hwy 119 to Weld County Road 7,where it continues on the west side of Weld County Road 7 in a southward direction for about seven miles until it intersects with the existing • Page E-510 • Ms.Contiguglia • January 29,2007 Page 2 abandoned Union Pacific Railroad tracks near Erie. The APE includes the existing railroad tracks and ROW along the existing BNSF tracks. There are several areas along the BNSF alignment where curves will be slightly realigned. In those areas the APE includes the adjoining parcels. From Longmont to the south and east,the APE includes the parcels within a 300-ft.corridor along the proposed new alignment. Oueue Jumps—Bus Rapid Transit The APE for the queue jump improvements occur along three highways:US 85 from Platteville through Evans;US 34 from SH 257 to US 85;and SH 68 between I-25 and US 287. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance. As with the North I-25 corridor,in instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity beyond the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150 ft.buffer,that property was also included within the APE. There are proposed queue jumps to accommodate the commuter bus on US 85,and on US 34 to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit.Most of these queue jumps will be improvements within the existing right-of-way. For improvements associated with queue jumps outside the existing right-of-way,we will include the adjacent first-tier properties. We request your review of and age cement with the APE boundary(ies)as discussed above and represented on the enclosed maps. Your response is necessary for CDOT's and FHWA's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. If you require additional information,please contact CDOT Acting Staff Historian Robert Autobee at(303)757-9758. Very truly yours, • v"" • Brad Beckham,Manager . Environmental Programs Branch Enclosure:APE maps cc: Carol Parr,CDOT Region 4 Gina McAfee,McAfee,Carter&Burgess Melinda Castillo,FH WA File/CF • Page E-511 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch IV; DOT 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 (503)757-9259 __. ._._ oaaarxwrorr,�� a March 12,2007 Ms-Georgia=Contiguglia State Historic Preservation Officer Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway Denver,CO 80203 SUBJECT: Additional Information on the Area of Potential Effects,North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement(CRS#42346) • Dear Ms.Contiguglia: Your letter of February 16,2007,regarding the Area of Potential Effects(APE)for the project referenced above expressed concerns regarding the commuter rail corridor within the APE. By way of clarification, . the APB for the commuter mail corridor extends along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)Railroad from Fort Collins to Longmont. From Longmont,the APE follows the new Longmont-North Metro Alignment eastward along the north side of State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 7(refer to the enclosed map book pages A-22,A-23 and B-27),where it continues to the Westside of Weld County Road 7 to the south for about seven miles(see map book pages B.27 through B-3I),until it intersects • with the existing abandoned Union Pacific(UP)railroad tracks near Erie. You also inquired if the effects determination took into account potential noise and vibration issues addressed in the APE. In June 2006,representatives from your office and CDOTlleid a field meeting to discuss the commuter rail APE. Both parties agreed that the commuter rail APE would include the existing railroad itself where the proposed improvements were on existing alignment Where the track was proposed to be realigned,the APE would include adjacent properties. In those locations where the commuter rail would be on a new alignment(i.e.,the Longmont-North Metro Connection),the APE includes parcels within a 300-foot'corridor along the proposed new alignment,which will include potential noise and vibration effects. A 1:800 scale map is enclosed that better defines the North 1-25 APE boundary to aid in your review. We request your comment on and agreement with the APE boundary as discussed above and represented on the enclosed maps. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. If you require additional information,please contact CDOT Assistant Staff Historian Robert Autobee at(303)757-9758. Neii yours,n.rad B am Manager Environmental Programs Branch Enclosure:APE maps cc: Carol Parr,CDOT Region 4 Gina McAfee,Carter&Burgess Melinda Castillo,FHWA File/CF Page E-512 • • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch i�-� 0 OT Shumate Budding 4201 East Arkansas Avenue --- Denver,Caleredo 80222 Doi eevrorxnnraiarTAT,w (303)757.9259 May 1,2007 Tom Vaughn,Museum Director Berthoud Historic Preservation Commission P.O.Box 225 Berthoud,CO 80513 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Vaughn: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FtA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(COOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470f)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Berthoud Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(O(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project arca,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North 1-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84`"Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. • Page E-513 Mr.'Vaughn • May I,2007 Page 2 Commuter Rail Corridor The APE for the Commuter Rail Corridor extends along the existing BNSF railroad tracks from Fort Collins to Longmont. From Longmont,it follows the new Longmont North Metro alignment eastward along the north side of State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 7,where it continues on the west side of Weld County Road 7 in a southward direction for about seven miles until it intersects with the existing abandoned Union Pacific Railroad tracks near Erie. The APE includes the existing railroad tracks and ROW along the existing BNSF tracks. There are several areas along the BNSF alignment where curves will be slightly realigned.In those areas the APE includes the adjoining parcels.From Longmont to the south and east,the APE includes the parcels within a 300-foot corridor along the proposed new alignment. Queue Jumps—Bus Rapid Transit The APE for the queue jump improvements occur along three highways:US 85 from Platteville through Evans and US 34 from RI 257 to US 85. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance. As with the North I-25 corridor,in instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity beyond the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. There are proposed queue jumps to accommodate the commuter bus on US 85,and on US 34 to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit. Most of these queue jumps will be improvements within the existing right-of-way. For improvements associated with queue jumps outside the existing right-of-way,we will include the adjacent first-tier properties. APE Maps For detailed maps of the APE,please refer to the following FTP site; fto://ftp.c- • ,com/Prolects/North%201-25/ To access the file,follow the directions below: 1)Go to'File" 2)Click"Log-in As"...(using your Internet browser's File menu) 3)Enter Usemame: North125FTP 4)Enter Username: b5adr5we A single pdf file will appear. This is a large file containing numerous aerial maps,so it will take several minutes for this file to download so please be patient. Section 106 Consultation We are contacting local historical organizations to help identify any historic buildings,districts,sites, objects,or archaeological sites of significance within the APE. Additionally,we are conducting research on properties not previously evaluated for the National Register of Historio Places(NRHP)within the project area to determine their architectural and historical significance. Our assessment of significance will be based on the established NRHP eligibility criteria. Any information you can provide will help ensure that important historical resources are considered and protected. If you are interested in participating as a consulting party for this project under the Section 106 guidelines,please respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter to Lisa Schoch,CDOT Senior Staff Historian,at the address on the letterhead. We request that your response include a statement of demonstrated interest in historic properties associated with this project,as stipulated in the Section 106 regulation. If you require additional information or have any questions about the Section 106 process, please contact Ms.Schoch at(303)512-4258. • Page E-514 • Mr.Vaughn May 1,2007 Page 3 Very truly yours, ifigran Beckham,Manager Environmental Programs Branch Enclosure:Map of Study Area cc: Carol Parr,CBOT Region 4 Melinda Urban,FIiWA Wendy Wallach,Carter Burgess Carol Legard,ACIIP Georgianna Contiguglia,Colorado SHFO F/CF • • Page E-515 • STATE OF COLORADO • ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch li►_^ POT Shumate Building 4201 East Arkansas Avenue $_- Denver,Colorado 80222 nvAsnmrrar T (303)757.9289 �rua May 1,2007 Jim Sidebottom Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board 130 S.McKinley St. Fort Lupton,CO 80621 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Sidebottom: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic • Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470f)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(f)(I)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. Page E-516 J • • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Shumate ental Programs Branch r, DOT Shumate Building 4201 East Arkansas Avenue miammilisommonor Denver,Colorado 80222 (303)757.9259 ovexraertamuarortunax May 1,2007 Karen McWilliams Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission Fort Collins Advance Planning Dept. 281 N.College Ave. Fort Collins,CO 80524 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.McWilliams: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The • EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4700 and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(0(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief • descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North I-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway i in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an Page E-517 e. - 'r • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch Shumate Building 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 (303)757.9269 ovM,.m.rwrnwNarurturwry May 1,2007 Mark Rodman Colorado Preservation,Inc. 333 W.Colfax Avenue,Suite 300 Denver,CO 80204 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Rodman: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4700 and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer Colorado Preservation Incorporated the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(1)(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North 1-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North I-2S Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84i'Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. Page E-518 I • - STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch �. �OT Shumate Building 4201 EastMkansas Avenue = - Denver,Colorado 60222 (303)757-9259 na"gme�r°rTM^^sl°°r"*wn May 1,2007 Tanya Haas Broomfield Historic Landmark Board 1 Descombes Drive Broomfield,CO 80020 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Vaughn: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(COOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the 1-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4700 and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and COOT would like to formally offer the Broomfield Historic Landmark Board the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(1)(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries arc located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along 1-25 from 84'"Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. • Page E-519 :STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch Prt" OT Shumate Building 4201 EastArkansas Avenue -- " -- -- Denver,Colorado 80222 - (303)757-9259 nvurIerrarr+u,sII"Mranreri May 1,2007 Mark Heidt Brighton Historic Preservation Commission 22 South 41b Avenue,#102 Brighton,CO 80601 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Heidt: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(ETA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the 1-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic • Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4701)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Brighton Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(f)(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Po erafiat-Efthtt4 _.._ ...-...._ _. As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in • the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North 1-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North I-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along 1-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. S Page E-520 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch IF: I OT Shumate Building 4201 EastArkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 eo.R,i a TArro„ (303)7573259 May 1,2007 Ms.Barbara Pahl National Trust for Historic Preservation Mountains/Plains Office 535 16i°Street,Suite 750 Denver,CO 80202 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.Pahl: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(PTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470f)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the tmdertaldng's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,PTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the National Trust for Historic Preservation the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(f)(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North 1-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84"Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • Page E-521 • • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch T" Shumate Building 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver.Colorado 80222 DTI err fie CtTAflo( (303)757.9259 May 1,2007 Joseph A.Racine Timnath Planning Commission P.O.Box 37 4100 Main Street Timnath,CO 81435 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Racine: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate inulti-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the 1-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic •I Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4701)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and-historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Timnath Planning Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(1)(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North 1-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84'h Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties, In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. Page E-522 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch labeff♦✓l Shumate Building 4201 East Arkansas Avenue .. Denver,Colorado 80222 uvurwerrOfTW8 mrnmae (303)757-9259 May 1,2007 Greg George Loveland Historic Preservation Commission 500 E.3i°St. Loveland,CO 80537 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.George: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. • This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4701)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Loveland Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(1)(1)of the regulation. • Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along 1-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an older structure exhibiting architectural integrity outside the maximum area of disturbance,but within an approximate 150-foot buffer,that property was also included within the APE. • Page E-523 • STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch ,( OT Shumate Building 4201 EastArkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 oWASUIDJT OrnwroRTAmx (303)787.9259 May 1,2007 Ryan Kragemd Longmont Historic Preservation Commission Longmont Planning Office 350ICimbark St. Longmont,CO 80501 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Mr.Kragerud: • The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The • EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16.U.S.C.470f)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,PHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Longmont Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(t)(l)of the regulation. • Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential.Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84t°Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an Page E-524 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ Environmental Programs Branch 'i. 1 OT Shumate Building i 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver,Colorado 80222 orsu¢wwrarnumaeutrox (303)757-9259 May 1,2007 Betsy Kellums Greeley Historic Preservation Commission City of Greeley Museums 714 8th Street Greeley,CO 80631 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.Kellums: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The • EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470O and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Greeley Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(0(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North 1-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-stripitig the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I-25 from 84i°Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • Page E-525 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs BranchV.-) .SOT Shumate Binding 4201 East Arkansas Avenue eismomar Denver,Co 811222 MAMMA., wa or* rarcArxev (303)757-9259259 May 22,2007 Ms.Celeste Flores Historic Preservation Commission City of Northglenn 11701 Community Center Drive Northglenn,CO 80233 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.Grimm: The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(COOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the 1-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic • Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.4701)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,PTA and COOT would like to formally offer the Northglenn Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section 800.3(f)(I)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Areaof Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North I-25 Condor The APE for the North I-25 Corridor extends along I.25 from 84'"Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • Page E-526 S. • • STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF COLORADO Environmental Programs Branch •Shumate Building �� ,�T 4201 East Arkansas Avenue — -- — Denver,Colorado 80222 (303)757-9259 ovurraouror TxVa,aarw _ May 1,2007 Denise Grimm Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board Boulder County Land Use Dept. P.O.Box 471 Boulder,CO 80306 SUBJECT: Section 106 Historic Properties Consultation,North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment Dear Ms.Grimm: The Federal Highway Administration(FIIWA)and the Federal Transit Administration(PTA),in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),have initiated preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver.The • EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people,goods and services in the I-25 corridor. This project is an undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,as amended(Section 106, 16 U.S.C.470f)and its implementing regulations(36 CFR 800). We are currently seeking the assistance of local communities and historic preservation organizations in the identification of historic properties,and to help identify issues that may relate to the undertaking's potential:effects on historic properties. Toward that end,FHWA,FTA and CDOT would like to formally offer the Boulder County Historic Preservation Advisory Board the opportunity to participate as a consulting party for the Section 106 compliance process,as provided in Section • 800.3(f)(1)of the regulation. Historic Properties Identification and Area of Potential Effects As part of our survey of the project area,we are identifying previously unrecorded historic properties in the Area of Potential Effects(APE),as well as known properties. Specific APE boundaries have been defined for the three proposed transportation improvements under evaluation:the North I-25 corridor,a commuter rail corridor,and queue jumps for bus rapid transit along US Highways 34 and 85. (A queue jump is a lane created through new pavement or re-striping the existing roadway that allows transit vehicles such as buses to get around automobiles stopped at a traffic light.) All of these APE boundaries are located within the larger regional study area on the enclosed map. We have provided brief descriptions of the different APE Corridors below: North 1-25 Corridor The APE for the North 1-25 Corridor extends along 1-25 from 84th Avenue to Thornton to State Highway 1 in Wellington. The APE includes the area within the maximum area of disturbance for the project, which is generally the existing ROW plus portions of adjacent properties. In instances where there is an • Page E-527 y } COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • ry , e. Historic Preservation 1100101b Street,Suite 201,Greeley,Colorado 80831 lF ww.(970)350-9222• Fax(970)350-9895 `` 1� wgreelevuov-corn uo • 1 ^4' '�fi�;3rLC'r May 4,2007 Lisa Schoch COOT Senior StaffHistorian Enivommental Programs Branch Shwnate Building 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Deaver,Colorado 80222 Dear Lisa, We appreciate your letter offering us the opportunity to participate in the North Interstate 25 Environmental Assessment. We are interested in participating as a consulting party and are thankful for the chance to comment Please note the Greeley Historic Preservation Office address has chinned. The new address is: 1100 106 Street,Ste.201 Greeley,CO 80631 • Pleasefeelfreetocallmeat350-9222ore-mailmeatbetsv.kellums@greeleygov.com ifyouhave any questions. Thank you very much. i really appreciate your helpt.e . ds, .e&- -- Betsy Ke]ants Historic Preservation Specialist .11. SIR V I N G OUR COMMUNITY • ' S A TRADITION Zile promise/o preserve andtmprooe//Se palely oils/clot Srceley/lrouy /tritely, roue leous and car/.lJeci.uc se.once Page E-528 • dr ;fin City of Fort Lupton .: 4 Planning and Building ear°° Department Fgmtmaaentee y,roan*, AeoeMaWCywarrior (303)857-6594 x 125 Tan Perko,Plennekg Director Fax(303)857-0351 130 S.MclInley Avenue e•mM tearkogrodcAmorc Foci Lupton,Colorado 80621 http,MovlaUupton.org June 26,2007 Brad Beckham,Manager Environmental Programs Branch Colorado Department of Transportation Shumate Building 4201 EArkansas Ave Denver,CO 80222 Mr.Beckham; The Historic Preservation Board for the City of Fort Lupton has reviewed the proposed multi- modal,transportation improvements along US highway 85. • Upon review of the application the Board finds that there are no conflicts with the Fort Lupton Preservation Plan or applicable Municipal Codes with regard to Historic Preservation. The Board would like the Colorado Department of Transportation to be aware that the South Platte Valley Historical Society owns property that serves as a Historic Park and includes several historic structures. The Board requests that acrrss to and from this Park not be hindered by this proposed project If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 303/857-6694 ext. 125 or 1parkolforUuoton.org. ../tar+d , Torn Parka h Planning Director • Page E-529 Il City ofter— �� • Colorado Greeley Great From the Ground Up. August 8,2007 Brad Beckham,Manager C-DOT Environmental Programs Branch 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Shumate Building Denver, Colorado 80222 SUBJECT: Eligibility Determinations,North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr.Beckham: Thank you for the letter requesting comments on the eligibility determinations in the North I-25 EIS. The Greeley Historic Preservation Office reviewed the forms for Greeley properties including:the North Boomerang Extension Ditch 5WL.2049.1,Book Rack Shopping Center 5WL.5214,New Idea Cleaners • 5WL.5298,Best in Show Pet Grooming/Checks Cashed 5WL.5299,Rapp's Service Station 5WL.5300, Tortilleria Y Panaderia 5WL.5281,and Precision Welding&Design 5WL.5280 and agrees with the determinations of not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Please contact me at h"s, e !timzs;r?'ure&e,.a;c,i,c;r , or 970.350.9222 if there is anything I can do to assist with this project. Sincerely, /_/(/� , L3 !-c 6t2✓ Betsy Kellums Historic Preservation Specialist Community Development-Historic Preservation . 1100 10th Street,Ste.201,Greeley,CO 80631 • (970)350-9222 Fax(970)350-9895 We promise to preserve and imnrnve the Quality of life for Greeley through timely.courteous and cost-effective service. • Page E-530 • • r *,e , bp,. COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver,Colorado 80203-2137 August 21,2007 Brad Beckham Manager,Environmental Programs Branch Colorado Department of Transportation Environmental Programs Branch 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, CO 86222 Re: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement: Determinations of Eligibility. (CHS*42346) Dear Mr.Beckham, • Thank you for your correspondence dated August 1,2007 and received by our office on that same date regarding the consultation of the above-mentioned project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(Section 106). After review of the provided information,we have additional questions regarding the resources listed below. • 5WL.5205.According to the site form the chimney is located in the center of the roof of the main section. This chimney placement strongly suggests that the house conforms to the saddlebag type, which features a central chimney flanked by rooms, This example appears to feature the central clutuney with a hipped with ridge roof. The additions appear to be within the historic period and do not overwhelm the house. In our opinion, the property has the potential of being eligible as a good representative example of a saddlebag type residence. • 5WL.5201. We do not concur that this resource is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP). In our opinion,the property is a good representative example of the I-House type featuring the Gothic Revival style, The rear addition does not appear to overwhelm the historic character-defining features of the house. While the agricultural setting has been lost,the historic setting around the house still appears to be intact. Therefore,we feel the property is eligible under National Register Criterion C for architecture. • 5WL.3146.1. No official determination has been made by the SHPO for the entire ditch. The submitted site form states that the SHPO officially concurred with a finding of not eligible for the entire ditch in 2001. Item 17 of that form states that the evaluation of the • entire ditch is a field determination and not an official SHPO determination. The entire ditch has not been surveyed nor evaluated. The 2001 evaluation was for the segment 11/29/2007 TRU 23:43 [TX/RX NO 6937] [j002 Page E-531 • only. In addition, only a very • small segment •of the ditch that traveled under I-25 was evaluated at that time(approximately 8 Ion). In our opinion,there is not enough information to make a determination of eligibility for the entire ditch. Please provide an evaluation of whether or not the segment supports or does not support the overall eligibility of the ditch. • SWL.1974.1. No official determination has been made by the SHPO for the entire ditch. The submitted site form states that the SHPO officially concurred with a finding of not eligible for the entire ditch in 1993. The entire ditch has not been surveyed nor evaluated. The 1993 evaluation was for the segment only. In addition,only a very small segment of the ditch that traveled under 1-25 was evaluated at that time. In our opinion, there is not enough information to make a determination of eligibility for the entire ditch. Please provide an evaluation of whether or not the segment supports or does not support the overall eligibility of the ditch. • 5LR11391.The site form discusses outbuildings, but there are no pictures,sketch map, or detailed narrative descriptions of the outbuildings, Because it is difficult to see the _Nib.< main building in the provided picture,please provide more narrative on why the building is not a good representative example of the bungalow type? The Bungalow type is lo co common in Colorado, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered not eligible just because it is a common type. Is this building a good example of that common type? • SWL.5273. It is difficult to evaluate this barn under National Register Criterion A because very little history regarding the barn is provided. The site form states that the fit-AC "shed is one of many similar fraction,basic sheds that were built on the Plains in r Ian) early to mid-20th Century,"but the form does not state the function. • 5LR995.4. In our opinion,them is not information provided on the 1983 site form to • determine that the ditch is not eligible for the NRI-W. After review of the submitted site form,we believe that the segment does not support the overall eligibility of the entire ditch. • SWL.5461.1.In our opinion,not enough information is provided to determine that the entire ditch is not eligible for the NRHP. The site form states an early date of 1871 and I'1' that it serviced alfalfa,corn,dry beans, small grains,sugar beets,and grass pastures. Why is this historic function not significant at the local level in Boulder County? ,y,�"S • 5BL.7606, Why is this resource not a good local example of the International style72/ Vi� • 5WL.5308.1. The site form states that the history of this resource is tied to the history o. the New Thomas Lake;however,no history is provided regarding the lake In order to evaluate the significance of this resource, �� tel co Thomas Lake. Please provide a short history on the New • SBL.10359.1. We concur that this segment has lost integrity and does not support the overall eligibility of the entire linear resource. We do not concur that the entire railroad line is not eligible. In our opinion,the site form only includes detailed information regarding the segment and does not provide enough detailed information regarding the entire line. • SWL.852, Was this resource evaluated as a historic site? According to the National f Register Bulletin.'How to Complete the National Register Registration Form(formally National Register Bulletin 16A),a site is"a location of a significant event,a prehistoric P/L' or historic occupation or activity,or a building or structure, whether standing,ruined,or vanished,where the location itself possess historic,cultural, or archeological value North 1-25 ETS;Determinations of Eligibility • August 21,2007 2 CHS#42346 11/29/2007 THU 23:43 [TX/RI NO 69371 13J003 Page E-532 regardless of the value of any existing structure." Was the townsite of St.Vrains significant at the local level for its history? We concur with the findings of eligibility for the bridges within the Area of Potential Effects as presented in your cover letter and in the survey report,We concur that resource 5WL.2985 is eligible and listed on the NRHP on October 15,2002. In regards to resource 5LR.1I396/Einarsen Farm,we concur that this resource is eligible under National Register Criterion C. Was the resources evaluated under National Register Criterion A for significance in agriculture? The resource features the main house,agricultural outbuildings, and farmed fields that can convey and represent the historic association of agriculture. Item 44 on the site forms for resources SWL.5267,5WL.5272,and 5WL.5274 was not marked. From the narratives and the survey report we were able to determine that the evaluation for these resources under item 44 was"not eligible." Staff has marked the forms accordingly. We request being involved in the consultation process with the local government,which as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.3 is required to be notified of the undertaking,and with other consulting parties, Additional information provided by the local government or consulting parties might cause our office to re-evaluate our eligibility and potential effect findings. Please note that our compliance letter does not end the 30-day review period provided to other • consulting parties. If we may be of further assistance,please contact Amy Pallante,our Section 106 Compliance Coordinator,at(303)866-4678. Sincerely, �VV\.aL Ui Georgianna Contiguglia State Historic Preservation Officer North 1-25 EIS:Determinations of Eligibility• 3 21,2007 CR5 CtdS 442346 11/29/2007 THU 23:43 [TX/RX NO 69371 1004 Page E-533 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Environmental Programs Branch OT 4201 East Mta sas Programs Shumate Building Denver,Colorado 80222 (303)757-9259 uvunwarra�� ON FAX(303)767-9445 October 4,2007 Ms.Georgianna Contigugiia State Historic Preservation Officer Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway Denver,CO 80203 Subject: Additional Information,North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms.Contiguglia: This letter includes additional information regarding resources associated with the project referenced above. As requested in your letter of August 21,2007,included herein is additional data regarding seven architectural properties and six inigation and railroad properties. ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES (Revised site forms were prepared for 5 WL5574,5BL7606 and 5LR11391). 5WL852(Now SWL5574):You asked if the St.Vrains town site was evaluated as a historic site,and • inquired whether it is significant at the local level. We have determined that the initial site form we submitted did not document the proper resource,so we've assigned a new number and provided a revised site form. The property assigned 5WL852 was evaluated as the St.Vrains town site,which was essentially a post office from 1911 to 1918. The name St.Vrains was given to the junction of the Union Pacific and Denver&Boulder Valley railroad lines,and this junction is about 0.3 miles from the flour elevator documented on the attached revised site form and assigned number 5WL5574. According to research,the grain elevator site was in operation from the early 1900s until the 1930s.The building on the site reportedly once housed an office and scale for weighing th no root windows,or doors. There were originally grain,bust o on the site;ly consists that is a shell of twhese four grain elevators the all left oFthese are four circular foundations. Although the property likely had an association with agricultural development in the area,it does not retain the essential physical features that comprised its character and appearance during the period of its association and therefore is not eligible for the National Register. Please note that the photos attached to the initial site form for 5WL852 remain valid. SWL5201:You disagreed with our eligibility determination and stated that the property is significant under National Register Criterion C as an example of an I-House featuring the Gothic Revival style. We believe that the addition of vinyl siding and the addition on the rear of the house have compromised its integrity and it is therefore not a good representative example of this architectural style. We continue to support our determination that the property is not eligible. SWL5205:You stated that the house on this property has the potential to be a good example of a saddlebag type residence. Additional research indicates that saddlebag residences are typical in the southeast part of the country. They are characterized as two one-room cabins that are connected and Page E-534 ' ' Y • •Ms.c-'enttgugha •`� • _ r .•,.t • . & October 5.2007 tt -#.J , ' • P • 2 • AI • share a shingled roof having a single pitch on each side of a central edge. The cabins have separate entrances and usually there is no interior door between them. A central chimney is common, so the cabins are joined back-to-back and share the same chimney stack. The house at SW1.5205 appears to he a hipped cottage with a hipped-roof room and shed roof addition on the north elevation. Rased on the description of the saddlebag, we do not believe this is ri good example oldie saddlebag architectural type and given the modifications to the stnieture, we also don't believe it is a good example of a hipped cottage. We maintain our initial determination that this property is not eligible. 5W1,5273: You requested information about the history of the shed on this property. Additional research indicates that the shed was mainly used for agricultural equipment storage. It was built in 1930 and features s-foot headers,so no large equipment was stored in the structure. The shed was once part of a 300-acre Farm that was purchased in 1954 by the Koldeway family The family used the farm until 1972. when it was purchased by a gravel company, who then sold it to an investment company. In 2001, the: investment company sold 200 acres to the City of Longmont for open space and the remaining land was subdivided into 3 lots and leased fur cattle grazing. The current parcel site is 3 to 4 acres. The original farmhouse burned and was replaced with a new house built in 1991. Although the shed was once part of a larger agricultural complex,the setting within the property boundary has been altered and the shed itself does not h:nc any historical associations beyond its use on the former farm complex. Based on the additional research,('DOE has determined that the property,including the shed, is not eligible. • 5131,7606: We have re-evaluated the building and determined that this is a good example of the international Style; a revised the site form(enclosed)indicates that it is eligible under NIZHP Criterion C. • 5LR1 1391: We have re-evaluated the property and determined that it is a good example of the bungalow type,and that it is eligible under NRHP Criterion C. Once again,a revised site form is included herewith. 5R111396: CIX)T agrees that the property is also eligible under Criterion A for its association with agriculture. IRRIGATION DITCHES AND RAILROADS (Revised site forms were prepared for the ditch and railroad properties listed below. Please refer to these in your review.) 51.8995.4: We have determined that this ditch is potentially eligible for association with agriculture in Larimer County. However, we still support our initial determination that the ditch segment lacks integrity. Your staff concurred with the integrity finding for this segment in correspondence dated August 21.2007. 5W1..197,1.l,5W1 3196.1: We have determined that these ditches arc potentially eligible under Criterion A for association with agriculture in Weld County. However, we have also determined that the ditch segments lack integrity. • 5W1,5461.I: CDO'I'has determined that this ditch is potentially eligible under Criterion A for association with the development of agriculture in Weld County. The ditch segment in the project area detains sufficient integrity to support the overall significance of the resource. 513LI0359_I: We have determined that the entire railroad is potentially eligible,but we still support the initial determination that the segment in the project area has lost integrity. You concurred with the integrity finding for the segment in correspondence dated August 21,2007. Page E-535 CMat ber 4,2007 • • October 4,2007 Page 3 5WL5308.1:Your office requested additional information regarding the history of the New Thomas Lake Feeder Ditch and its relationship to New Thomas Lake. Archival research indicates that the ditch functions as a supply ditch to both Thomas Lake(built in 1891)and New Thomas Lake,which was built between 1949 and 1979. Research also indicates that the portion of the ditch west of Interstate 25 was built c. 1891,and the ditch to the east of the highway was built c.1965. CDOT has determined that the entire ditch is not eligible to the NRIIP and that the segment in the project area lacks integrity. We request your concurrence with the additional information and determinations of eligibility outlined herein. If you have questions or requite additional information in order to complete your review,please contact CDOT Senior Staff Historian Lisa Schoch at(303)512.4258. Very truly yours, i fri, _,.. . , Brad Beckham,Manager Environmental Programs Manager _ Enclosures: Revised site forms cc: Fle/R • • Page E-536 • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF COLORADO CDOT-Region 4 T Environmental/Planning Q 14202n°Street Greeley,Colorado 80631 (970)350-2204 DfrARTME IT OF TRANSPORTATIOk October 6, 2008 Mr. Edward C.Nichols State Historic Preservation Officer Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway Denver,CO 80203 SUBJECT: Additional Determinations of Eligibility,I-25 North Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),CDOT Project No. IM 0253-179,Boulder and Larimer Counties,(CHS#42346) Dear Mr.Nichols: This letter and enclosed materials constitute a request for additional determinations of eligibility for the project referenced above. In October 2007,your office concurred with our initial eligibility determinations for historic properties within the I-25 North project corridor. During the summer of 2008, • the 1-25 North project team discovered five additional properties along the proposed commuter rail corridor between Fort Collins and Longmont requiring survey and inclusion into the EIS. Methodology and Survey Results Four of the sites are in Longmont with the remaining property in Berthoud. All five properties are within the boundaries of the Area of Potential Effects(APE)as agreed to by your office on March 21, 2007. In August 2008,Gail Keeley of Hermsen Consultants surveyed three unrecorded properties and re-evaluated two previously recorded sites. Please refer to the table below for a brief description of each site: OAHP Site Number Location Name/Description Eligibility Assessment 5BL9186 833 Baker Street, Residence Recommended Field- Longmont not eligible,2003 5BL9187 841 Baker Street, Residence Recommended Field- Longmont not eligible,2003 5B110636 122 8'"Avenue, Boggs Residence Determined NRHP- Longmont eligible under Criterion C,2008 5BL10637 11120 Vermillion Road, Carlson Farm Determined not eligible Longmont to the NRHP,2008 5LR12015 1933 S.County Road Johnstone Residence Determined not eligible 15, Berthoud to the NRHP,2008 Accompanying the site forms is a revised map of the Schmer Farm's(Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation [OAHP] Site No. SLR I 1209)historic property boundary. The new map • corrects an error found in the 2007 Historic Resources Survey Report. This office will submit for review Page E-537 Mr.Nichols October 6,2008 Page 2 • a determination of effects for National Register of Historic Places(NRHP)-eligible properties within the 1-25 North project corridor at a later date. Eligibility Determinations 5BL10636,Boggs Residence, 122 8th Avenue: This structure was initially constructed in 1939 and appears to have been a rental property since the mid-I960s. The house displays elements of the hipped- roof box style with an arcaded porch and stucco walls indicating a Mediterranean influence. These style elements are unusual for Longmont residences built during the mid-20'h century. There is no historically significant individual or event associated with this location. CDOT has determined that 5BL10636 is not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP)under Criterion A. Despite the introduction of new windows along the basement level during the past 20 years,the Boggs house has retained much of its original integrity and is eligible to the NRHP under Criterion C as a good example of the hipped-roof box style. 5BL9186,833 Baker Street: Cultural Resource Historians,Inc.(CRH) initially surveyed this property as part of the City of Longmont East Side Neighborhood Historic Context and Survey Report and recommended 5BL9186 as not eligible to the NRHP in May 2003. Modifications to the front porch,the introduction of a garage and new siding since the mid-1970s has altered the structure's original integrity. There are no historically notable individuals or events associated with this residence. CDOT concurs with the previous recommendation that 5BL9186 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. 5BL9187,841 Baker Street: CRH initially surveyed this property as part of the City of Longmont East • Side Neighborhood Historic Context and Survey Report and recommended the residence as not eligible to the NRHP in May 2003. Built in 1961,5BL9187 is in residential neighborhood dominated by houses dating from the early 20th century. There are no significant historic events or individuals associated with 5BL9187 and the property displays poor physical integrity. CDOT concurs with the earlier recommendation that 5BL9187 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. 5BL10637,Carbon Farm, 11120 Vermillion Road: This 155-acre property has been in agricultural production since the early 20th century, but there is no association with any notable historic figure and event in local history. The removal of the original farmhouse for a modern residence during the last decade,and the re-use of the silo as a telecommunication antenna support,has altered the site's original historic integrity. Because there is no association to any historically significant individual or event,and the severity of the alternations to the integrity of the original farm site, CDOT has determined that 5BL10637 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. 5LR12015, 1933 S.County Road 15: The main house associated with this Berthoud farm site was built in 1915 and underwent remodeling during 2002.There is little detailed information on the property's ownership over the last century. The gradual loss of the surrounding farm acreage to new tract housing has severely altered this site's original historic setting and feeling. For these reasons, CDOT has determined that 5LR12015 is not eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and C. We request your concurrence with this additional information and determinations of eligibility outlined herein and on the enclosed forms.Your response is necessary for the Federal Highway Administration's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations. • Page E-538 Mr.Nichols October 6,2008 • Page 3 We have also sent this request to the I-25 North EIS consulting parties,the Cities of Greeley and Fort Lupton,for their review and comment. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. If you require additional information, please contact CDOT-Region 4 Senior Historian Robert Autobee at(970)350-2204. Veryt ujy • yoy►� Robert Autobee,CDOT-Region 4 Senior Historian Environmental/Planning Branch Enc. cc: Monica Pavlik,FHWA Gina McAfee,Jacobs,Carter&Burgess Thor Gjelsteen,FHU Carol Parr,CDOT-Region 4 CF • • Page E-539 NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation December 1, 2006 Greg Monroe Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Monroe, Carter& Burgess, Inc. has been retained by the Colorado Department of Transportation to provide environmental consulting services to complete a transportation study and environmental documentation for the North 1-25 DEIS project. The project runs from Denver Union Station to Wellington along 1-25. As part of the environmental impact assessment process we consider the impacts to parks, recreations areas, trails, and any other parcels that have received Land and Water Conservation funding. We have attached maps and tables that identify the parks and open space areas that are adjacent to the project alternatives. We would appreciate confirm whether or not any Land and Water Conservation Funds 16(f)j were used at any of these locations. A map or land description to accompany any results would be useful. • Please respond at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 303-820-4807 or email me at Wendv.Wallach jc-b.com. Sincerely, iVtirldfrk Wendy Wallach, AICP Carter& Burgess, Inc. attachments Cc: Gina McAfee, Thor Gjelsteen ILEMEOW7 DEC - 7 2006 FELSBURG, MOLT&ULLEVIG J:\_Transportation\071609.4001working\wendy\120106_6fLetter.doc Page E-540 NORTH 1-25 EIS January 22, 2007 Greg Monroe Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Monroe. Carter& Burgess, Inc. has been retained by the Colorado Department of Transportation to provide environmental consulting services to complete a transportation study and environmental documentation for the North 1-25 DEIS project. The project runs from Denver Union Station to Wellington along 1-25. As part of the environmental impact assessment process, we consider the impacts to parks, recreations areas.trails, and any other parcels that have received Land and Water Conservation funding. We have attached maps and tables that identify the existing and proposed trails that are adjacent to the project alternatives. We would appreciate confirmation on whether or not any Land and Water Conservation Funds (Section 6(f)] were used at any of these locations. A map or land description to accompany any results would be useful. Please respond at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 303-820-4807 or email me at Wendy.Wallach@c-b.com. Sincerely, Wendy Wallach\AICP Carter& Burgess. inc. attachments Cc: Gina McAfee.Thor Gjelsteen JA-,Transportation\071609.40MWOrkingMendy+120106 6lLetter.doc • Page E-541 NORTH 1-25 P EIS information, cooperation. transportation. March 8, 2007 Greg Monroe Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Monroe, This letter serves as follow up to previous letters sent to you on December 1, 2006 and January 22, 2007 regarding the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In the email you sent to Diana Bell of Carter& Burgess on January 2, 2007, you indicated that, of the park properties we sent to you, you found only three sites where Land and Water Conservation Funds(LWCF)were used: Pearson Park in Fort Lupton, Grant Park in Northglenn, and Riverside Park in Evans. In a later phone call, you confirmed that these three park properties were the only park and trail facilities that received LWCF funding, of those listed in the tables we provided in the correspondence mentioned above. In reviewing the locations of these parks relative to potential impact areas, we determined that none of the transportation build alternatives currently under study would require land from any of these properties. I've attached a map that shows the property boundary for Grant Park in relation • to proposed impact areas. Pearson Park and Riverside Park are located more than 8 and 14 miles, respectively, from any areas where new right-of-way would be required. Please indicate your concurrence that the build alternatives would not impact properties where LWCF monies were used by signing below and returning to me at the address listed above. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 303-820-4807 or email me at Wendy.Wallach@c- b.com. Sincerely, v �F Wendy Wallach, MCP Carter& Burgess, Inc. attachment Cc: Gina McAfee, Thor Gjelsteen Page E-542 NORTH 1-25 • EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Concurrence Colorado State Parks hereby concurs that the build alternatives under study as part of the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement would not impact properties where LWCF monies were used. By: Title: Date: J:\_Transportation\071609.400\working\Jim\030707_6fLetter.doc • • Page E-543 State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION O7' • Region 4-Loveland Residency �. 2207 E.Highway 402 ------ ----- _... Loveland,CO 80537-8885 -w eliniap,MYIYYITAawe January 21,2004 Aaron Linstrom,Terrestrial Biologist Colorado Division of Wildlife Denver Service Center and Northeast Region Office 6060 Broadway Denver,CO 80216 Re: North I-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr. Linstrom: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North 1-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in CDOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31,2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the 1-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: 1. Taking no action. • 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E.Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely. David M.Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. 1-25 Front Range EIS cc: Project File Page E-544 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETINGMINUTES irthirinalion cooperation Iran,pnnauon Air Quality: Nitrogen Deposition Meeting MEETING DATE: February 20, 2007 LOCATION: CDOT Region 4, Loveland Residency CDOT: Carol Parr, Dave Martinez, Long Nguyen,Ayman Salloum FHWA: Bill Haas CDPHE: Lisa Silva, Jim DiLeo, Curt Taipale EPA: Jeff Kimes, Robert Edgar, Deborah Lebow ATTENDEES: Fort Collins: Lucinda Smith Larimer County Health & Environment: Doug Ryan NPS: Karl Cordova FHU: Tom Anzia C&B: Gina McAfee,Wendy Wallach, Jill Schlaefer PREPARER: Carter$urgers Gina McAfee • Attendees, Bob Garcia, Stan Elmquist, Steve Olson, Monica Pavlik, COPIES: Dave Beckhouse Gayl Harrison, Chris Primus, Brian Werle, C&B File #071609.400 MEETING SUMMARY 1. Carol Parr began the meeting with a brief introduction to the project purpose and need and where we are in the NEPA process. 2. Wendy Wallach described the DEIS packages: No Action Alternative required 1-25 facility upgrades; Alternative A with Commuter Rail, US 85 and feeder system bus service, and l- 25 widening;Alternative B with Express Toll and BRT along 1-25. 3. Jim DiLeo asked if we had been coordinating with the MPOs. Gina described this coordination—with the TAC and RCC and relative to the travel demand forecasting model. 4. Jeff Kimes asked if the BRT is in an exclusive lane. It is, along with HOV and other managed lanes. 5. Why is a preferred alternative not being identified in the DEIS? Gina described how FHWA normally does their DEIS's-without identifying a preferred alternative. • Federal Highway Administration i Federal Transit,4dminisn•ation ',Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-545 NORTH I25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES m(orination cooperannn transportationAir Quality:Nitrogen Deposition Meeting February 20, 2007 2of5 6. Does FHWA only look at construction impacts? Will alternative-fueled vehicles be discussed? Gina described the impact analysis and mitigation commitment process—and the RTA discussions. 7. Will the component analysis look at each component as it stands on its own—or as a cumulative standpoint? 8. Local jurisdictions can implement mitigation like imposing use fees for vehicles as they enter a city center. 9. Gina described the SIP boundaries, the travel patterns, and travel time savings of the Tolled Express Lanes (40 minutes compared to SOVs). 10. Vanpools are a viable option for this area. Could this be something the project could do? Purchase vans? 11. Will our ridership be able to take advantage of the FasTracks corridors? • 12. What does the BNSF think about us using their right-of-way? There have been no discussions with them recently. They typically do not interfere in planning studies. There is no reason to think now that there will be an issue. 13. Karl Cordova from RMNP provided a brief discussion of the nitrogen deposition situation (see attached). Ozone is also an issue that will be addressed in the ozone EAC. The increasing NOx is affecting algae, plant species, composition, and variety of species. RMNP has initiated an MOU process with APCD and EPA. The Park is now looking at sources of NOx. The weather conditions bring air masses from the east which deposit gases in the park. Potential sources come from the east. The Park also in looking at their own operations. Suspected sources are: ► NOx P. Ammonia 14. Jill Schlaefer described the air quality analysis we will do from a transportation conformity standpoint. Both Larimer County and Weld County are projected to grow noticeably. Farmland is decreasing. The transportation analysis will look at VMT, speeds, EMIT (air quality), and hot spot analysis for CO and PM10. For the RMNP analysis, we will need to look at NOx and PM10. NOx emissions will be dropping due to increase emissions controls, even though there will • Page E-546 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES infunnetion ronpaaiian transpr:rta.iun. Air Quality:Nitrogen Deposition Meeting February 20, 2007 3of5 be increased VMT due to the improvements. This is also occurring with the No-Action Alternative. 15. Curt Taipale provided information about the monitoring data and emissions inventory. NOx and ammonia are the sources—split 50/50. Mobile sources are not the dominant source (45 percent in 2003 for NOx). Livestock is a noticeable source of ammonia. In 2018, mobile sources are predicted to decrease by 21 percent. Oil and gas goes up from 5 percent to 10 percent. For ammonia, mobile sources go from 13 percent to 15 percent. Livestock goes from 42 percent to 40 percent. Speed is a factor for NOx, with lowest emissions between 35 mph and 50 mph. And higher emissions at lower speeds and higher speeds. • 16. Jill noted that FHWA analysis show that even with increases in VMT (doubling)and default speeds, NOx will continue to go down. 17. What are the sources in the RMNP? Not known yet. 18. The data will be available in a preliminary manner soon. 19. How will the recent APCD rule changes for oil and gas affect the situation? 20. The analysis we will be doing is: ► NOx emissions—that includes speed, and for different geographic areas (using EMIT). 21. The Larimer County Environmental Board is looking at the effect our alternatives may have on nitrogen deposition and regional haze. We should specifically mention this in the DEIS. 22. Can we look at what factors will have an influence on Estes or Loveland or other neighborhoods between I,-25 and RMNP? 23. Would we be able to look at the monitoring data and disclose what the transportation component is and what portion of that would come from our project? 24. There is a requirement in NEPA to disclose impacts. This information can be used by CDOT and locals to discuss what could be done to make the situation better. Other issues besides transportation here are land use/development and oil and gas. Will the • Page E-547 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES iniorination cooperation transporiauon Air Quality:Nitrogen Deposition Meeting February 20, 2007 4 of 5 transportation and widened highways make this a more attractive place to live and work? Will there be less development if no transportation improvements at all are made? 25. In the cumulative impacts analysis,we will need to look at the cumulative impacts of all reasonable foreseeable changes to NOx deposition and ammonia. Can we commit to mitigation in concert with the NRDP strategies and indicate which entity would have responsibility for implementation? 26. In California, there is a similar situation with SH 99 and adjacency to Class 1 areas (Yosemite) and livestock. We could look at what the CARE is requiring there. 27. All participants are invited to come to the upcoming committee meetings: ► Land Use—May 10 1:30 p.m. (Technical Advisory Committee) 3:00 p.m. (Regional Coordination Committee—Policy-makers) ► Air Quality—July 12 • 1:30 p.m. (Technical Advisory Committee) 3:00 p.m. (Regional Coordination Committee—Policy-makers) 28. Will Package A increase development overall since it adds improvements to three corridors? From a nitrogen deposition perspective, is it better to have development spread out? Package A does have more potential for TOC. It goes along the older established communities and fits with their development plans to strengthen the city cores. Package B addresses more of the development along 1-25. 29. Lisa Silva discussed possible mitigation strategies. ► VMT reduction (HOV lanes, rail, buses) ► VMT reduction (no vehicles zones, bicycles lanes or trails, pedestrian friendly, access to natural areas) ► Roundabouts instead of signalized intersections ► ITS (queue jumps, etc.) 30. The St. George "Smart Growth"chapter findings could be shared with the TAC/RCC. COOT or FHWA could discuss mitigation to assist with city or county planning. The DEIS should acknowledge the interest of land use from the NFRMPO. • Page E-548 • NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES nfn Ina tian cor>peration uanspnrja 'or Air Quality:Nitrogen Deposition Meeting February 20, 2007 5 of 5 31. Could there be a variable message sign that gives variable speed limits? This could make the traffic go at a more consistent speed. Ramp metering does the same thing. 32. Transportation pricing is a good way to manage demand. 33. Jim DiLeo expressed a concern about DMU emissions with the commuter rail. • ]:\Transportation\071609.400\manage\mtgs\minutes\AQ Nitrogen Depostion 022007igj.aoc • Page E-549 5 , • �8 O . ,. , 3 . , f4pm ^ M c cc '8 Vl El ' 0 b , nilW w U x > H o 2 v , Q � e7 O 5 v Q V P�p��5� Dos. tm w' u d N Q tl 0 d I Q '. Y 0 N .k C. CfJ I- -.� a. ---0 Fa- w. O 7 N- c 9 co .f, t O� .Q J A + 1 1 • o Li ,., , ,-± ----s- E d. c; 6- �' „. ....)., to , e Z -O cl . Q U a. 7 CC 1: a Q cn _ zap N f ,, 2 \\]per •v E c J • Page E-550 0 @ as = i...5. . x $ � G . cr / \ / k / » \ o / % \ %$ ± 7 § • \ 2 6 § J \ 2 ! f / c & c $ ' ± s• C $ ^ E 121 \ = 3 c k t ' / ®ii, 7 2 ( 2 ) . / / ' }� ksat T / \ ■ J k� o2 ' () g ] 2 ! \g / � •7 / k C 2 ' C z = e5 ` | § QJ 1 A \ / �O ,I- e \ \ % % § < d v o • Q w R » I W 2 - % / ® ^k tit gl i e \ / \ k & CO ~ \ • Page E-551 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A • Region Four '• I o''I' 2207 East Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 8,2006 Ms. Kirstie Nixon Director Motor Carrier Services Division Colorado Department of Revenue 1881 Pierce Street, Room 118 Lakewood, CO 80214-1497 Re: CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Study and Basic Engineering—New Port of Entry Facility Dear Ms. Nixon: Attached please find the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Memorandum and Basic Engineering for the new Port of Entry facility between Harmony Road and Prospect Road in Fort Collins. • Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22, 2006. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lono.Nouvenedotstate.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(COOT), S.Olson (COOT), T.Anzia (FHU)J. Sharps(FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-552 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,^ . OT Region Four • 1 2207 East Highway 402 ---- -- Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 8, 2006 Mr. Roger A. Reisig District Supervisor Motor Carrier Services Division Colorado Department of Revenue 2237 Frontage Road S.W. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Re: CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Study and Basic Engineering—New Port of Entry Facility Dear Mr. Reisig: Attached please find the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Memorandum and Basic Engineering for the new Port of Entry facility between Harmony Road and Prospect Road in Fort • Collins. Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22, 2006. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lono.Nquyendot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, / f Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(CDOT),S. Olson (CDOT), T.Anzia (FHU)J. Sharps(FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-553 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,^ ,O 7' • Region Four • 2207 East Highway 402 r --. ......_,.. _..:- Loveland,CO 80537 (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 8, 2006 Mr. Rick Archer Motor Carrier Services Division Colorado Department of Revenue 1881 Pierce Street, Room 118 Lakewood, CO 80214-1497 Re: CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Study and Basic Engineering—New Port of Entry Facility Dear Mr. Archer: Attached please find the North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Memorandum and Basic Engineering for the new Port of Entry facility between Harmony Road and Prospect Road in Fort Collins. Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you have • any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lono.Nouvenedotstate.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez (CDOT), S, Olson (CDOT),T.Anzia (FHU)J. Sharps(FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-554 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '• OT . Region Four 2207 East Highway 402 - -- - Loveland,CO 80537 - (970)622-1270 Fax(970)669-0289 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 8,2006 Mr. Dan Wells Motor Carrier Services Division Colorado Department of Revenue 1881 Pierce Street, Room 118 Lakewood,CO 80214-1497 Re: CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Study and Basic Engineering—New Port of Entry Facility Dear Mr.Wells: Attached please find the North I-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Memorandum and Basic Engineering for the new Port of Entry facility between Harmony Road and Prospect Road in Fort Collins. • Please review this document and forward any comments to me by December 22,2006. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 970-622-1280 or Lonq.Nquyenadot.state.co.us. Thank you for your assistance and participation on this project. Sincerely, Long Nguyen, P.E. Colorado Department of Transportation Assistant Project Manager Cc: D. Martinez(CDOT), S. Olson (CDOT),T.Anzia (FHU)J.Sharps (FHU) Attachments • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-555 State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,• ,OT • Region 4-Loveland Residency 2207 E.Highway 402 -- Loveland,CO 80537-8885 'aissas OAMTIINT O,lY R0RTIM0.V January 21,2004 David Noe Chief of Engineering Geology Colorado Geological Survey 1313 Sherman Street,Room 715 Denver,CO 80203 Re: North 1-25 Front Range EIS Invitation to a Resource Agency Meeting Dear Mr.Noe: The Colorado Department of Transportation has issued the Notice to Proceed with the North I-25 Front Range Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process in COOT Region Four and the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2003. The goal of this project is to prepare an EIS evaluating future transportation alternatives and improvements for the I-25 corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. Alternatives under consideration include: 1. Taking no action. • 2. Improvements to the existing highway network,particularly 1-25 but perhaps also US 85 and US 287. 3. Transit options including bus and rail technologies. 4. Constructing a highway at a new location. We would like to invite you or your designated representative to participate in the scoping meeting for the Resource Agency Team. This meeting will be: Thursday,February 26,2004 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. Loveland CDOT Office 2207 E. Highway 402 Loveland,CO 80537 At this meeting we will provide a summary of our process and would request your input on any particular issues you wish us to study or processes you wish us to follow. We look forward to working in a partnership with you to conduct this EIS and determine the best transportation options for Northern Colorado. Sincerely, -OS w( David M. Martinez Project Manager CDOT N. I-25 Front Range EIS cc: Project File •'. Page E-556 Distribution of the Draft EIS Page E-557 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Page E-558 • NORTH I25 � } DEIS FINAL DISTRIBUTION LIST EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Date: November 24,2008 To: Carol Parr CDOT Region 4 From: Tom Anzia Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Subject: DEIS Document Distribution List }F .1 z i . e fi., *- vO4.„1V01:,, " '4 t F V Zell ��s yAY .d tV ',G`ia ' 'Ary x i h "- ny x>k vp ;!}[ f Ya ppk tev 3 } 7 A'+'M5 � Wn k xw ,v5 � x 44 ~fW"+ sit i ;,pS F i � , b a e'r s w '" d$ �! is;{pa`a` ;�x xaJ # � .a _ .� �>.,�#4 ''P t 2y 1. ' % Eli �'$, k��.r. o ,. ..d x. .,a,P� s`�,,,,�' a a i , �. n Dave Beckhouse 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered 10/29/2008 Federal Transit Administration 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 310 1 Full CD Set Lakewood, CO 80228 Monica Pavlik 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 Federal Hwy Administration 12300 W. Dakota Ave., #180 1 Full CD Set Lakewood, CO 80228 FHWA HQ 1 Basic Hard Copy Copy Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 FHWA- Legal 1 Basic Hard Copy Copy Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 • CDOT Region 4 Headquarters 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen 11/10/2008 Carol Parr 1420 2nd St. 1 Full CD Set Greeley, CO 80631 CDOT Region 4, Loveland Residency 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen 11/3/2008 Long Nguyen (Basic Copy)and 11/10/2008 (Tech 2207 Hwy 402 1 Full CD Set Reports and CDs) Loveland, CO 80537 Tom Mauser 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered 11/14/2008 CDOT Headquarters 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. 1 Full CD Set Shumate Bldg. Denver, CO 80222 CDOT EPB 1 Full Hard Copy Basic Signature Copy Delivered Vanessa Henderson 10/13/2008; Delivered Full Package 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. 1 Full CD Set 11/14/2008 Denver, CO 80222 L.f i , _.... a... . . .. Richard Cogswell 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered on 10/28/2008 Federal Railroad Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE SE Mail Stop W38145 (Irradiated, Reg Mail) Washington, DC 20590 USACE 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered on 10/28/2008; Provided • Tim Carey CD1/CD2 set and a Wetlands Tech 9307 S. Wadsworth Boulevard 1 Full CD Set Report on 11/10/2008 Littleton, CO 80128 1 Hard Copy Wetlands Tech Report rage t-oa• Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation 1a� sr r �} r�.'w"R S ''�u Sk •ra' ,,,„ tir ° `Th5te,, `- �..q$r w�'^. err,.a+ gs at "` I oc � �. ,mss '�k... �`"'� ? . • RTD a�, rn��< � XX� 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered on 10/28/2008 David Krutsinger 1600 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 US Department of Interior(DOI) 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Monica on 10/28/2008 Willie Taylor Office of Environmental Affairs 17 Basic CDs 1849 C Street, NW, Room 2340 Washington, DC 20240 202/208-4169 Mr. Don Klima, Director 1 Basic CD Delivered to Monica 10/28/2008 Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Ste. 803 Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Edward C. Nichols 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 State Historic Preservation Office, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Mr. Mike Konefal 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Fort Lupton Historic Preservation Board • 130 S. McKinley Street Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Brien Schumacherm, Principal Planner 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/12/2008 Longmont Historic Preservation Commission Longmont Planning Office 350 Kimbark St. Longmont, CO 80501 Ms. Betsy Kellums 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Greeley Historic Preservation Commission 1100 10th Street, Suite 210 Greeley, CO 80631 Mr. Billy Evans Horse, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Kiowa Business Committee Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 369 Carnegie, OK 73015 Mr. Clement Frost, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Southern Ute Indian Tribe P.O. Box 737 Ignacio, CO 81137 Mr. Wallace Coffey, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 • Commanche Tribal Business Committee Commanche Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 908 Lawton, OK 73502 Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-560 • •• 9 �* al r.k4 "t3 r '.\' 5.' .W}4•7K.at S #x ' � Frn'�,r2 * � •ifv s h`'2 Y- #.`' m - te •ti� .r: "', ✓ Mr. George Howell, President 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 881 Little Dee Drive Pawnee, OK 74058 Mr. Richard Brannan, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Northern Arapaho Business Council P.O. Box 396 Fort Washakie, WY 82514 Mr. Darrell Flyingman, Governor 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma P.O. Box 38 Concho, OK 73022 Mr. Eugene Little Coyote, Chairman 1 Basic CD Mailed 10/29/2008 Northern Cheyenne Tribe P.O. Box 128 Lame Deer MT 59043 gz r d. Cliff Davidson 1 Volume 1 and 2 prior to 10/9/2008; Delivered Signature Copy NFR MPO signature on 11/10/2008 235 Matthews Street Ft. Collins, CO 80524 1 Basic Hard Copy • Aimee Ryel, District Wildlife Manager 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 CDOW 4207 W Country Road 16E Loveland, CO. 80537 US EPA Office of Federal Activities 5 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Monica 10/22/2008 Ariel Rios Building (S. Oval Lobby) Mail Code 2252-A US EPA Region 8 (`EPR-N) 4 Basic Hard Copy plus 9 Delivered to Monica 10/22/2008 999 18th Street, Suite 300 Alternatives Development and Denver, CO 80202 Screening Report & Package Concept Plans on CD Greg Monroe 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, #618 Denver, CO 80203 Bryan Kohlenberg 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 UDFCD 2480 W. 26th Avenue, #156-B Denver, CO 80211 Alison Michael 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 USFWS PO Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 • John Stokes 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 City of Ft. Collins Natural Resources Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-561 ''.' .,.:s+ i ' ry..E ! .4.7" •Mike Soderberg 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 City of Thornton Community Services 9500 Civic Center Dr. Thornton, CO 80229 Amanda Peterson 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 City of Northglenn Parks and Recreation Department 11700 Community Center Dr. Northglenn, CO 80233 Jeremy Olinger 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 Town of Berthoud Parks and Recreation Department 100 10th St. Berthoud, CO 80513 Gary Havener 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 City of Loveland Parks and Recreation Department 500 East Third Loveland, CO 80537 Don Bessler 1 Basic CD Mailed 11/26/2008 City of Longmont Parks, Open Space, & Public Facilities Department 7 South Sunset St. Lon.mont CO 80501 • Felsburg Holt& Ullevig 1 Full Hard Copy Tom Anzia 6300 S. Syracuse Wa7, #600 Centennial, CO 80111 Jacobs 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered 11/10/2008 Gina McAfee 707 17th St., #2300 1 Full CD Set Denver CO 80202 Berthoud City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 328 Massachusetts Ave. 10/28/2008 Berthoud, CO 80513 CDOT Region 4 Headquarters 1 Full Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on Carol Parr 1420 2nd St. 10/28/2008 Greeley, CO 80631 CDOT Region 4, Loveland Residency 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on Long Nguyen 10/28/2008 2207 Hwy 402 Loveland, CO 80537 CDOT Headquarters 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on Vanessa Henderson 10/28/2008 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222 • Brighton City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 22 S. 4th Ave. 10/28/2008 Brighton, CO 80601 Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-562 tfarM si AdEt‘ n .Y ;x "� . 11,411Y . , a . Z ' 3'in }' ' R`; k `. 'A N' £t m .w'. ti • :r3 '� m V s . r !t a T a b $ #w; µ .k �.n4 �,'4 ,�s,` Longmont Civic Center 1 Basic Hard Copy Hard YCopy Delivered to Mindy Crane 350 Kimbark St. on 10/28/2008; CD mailed on Longmont, CO 80501 1 Basic CD 10/30/2008 Erie Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 645 Holbrook 10/28/2008 Erie, CO 80516 Ft. Collins City Bldg. 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 300 Laport 10/28/2008 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Ft. Collins Regional Library District 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 201 Pertson 10/28/2008 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Longmont Library 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 409 4th Avenue 10/28/2008 Longmont, CO 80501 Northglenn City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 11701 Community Center Dr. 10/28/2008 Northglenn, CO 80233 Thornton City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Mindy Crane on 9500 Civic Center Dr. 10/28/2008 Thornton, CO 80229 Dacono City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 512 Cherry St. 10/28/2008 • Dacono CO 80514 Firestone Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 151 Grant Ave. 10/28/2008 Firestone. CO 80520 Frederick Town Hall Admin Bldg 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 401 Locust St. 10/28/2008 Frederick, CO 80530 Greeley City Bldg 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 1000 10th Avenue 10/28/2008 Greeley, CO 80631 Greeley Lincoln Park Library 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 919 7th St., #100 10/28/2008 Greeley, CO 80631 Johnstown Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 101 Charlotte St. 10/28/2008 Johnstown, CO 805034 Larimer County 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 200 West Oak St. Suite 3000 10/28/2008 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Loveland City Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 500 E. 3rd St., #110 10/28/2008 Loveland, Co 80537 Loveland Library 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 300 N. Adams 10/28/2008 Loveland, Co 80537 Mead Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on • 441 Third St. 10/28/2008 Mead, CO 80452 Milliken Town Hall 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 2951 Ash St. 10/28/2008 Milliken, CO 80543 Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Peye E-5t3 Tf YA�L�. � .'v'64 � 4„i� i KYi ;rk19'!y �'+a py�p �� ;i * +� M:.S.fia'�ey{ yx Itiarw"W . ; � SW Weld county Bldg 1 Basic Hard Copy Delivered to Long Nguyen on 915 10th St. 10/28/2008 Greeley, CO 80632 *Packages Hard Copy Basic=Volume 1 +Volume 2+Alternatives Development and Screening Report+Package Concept Plans Full=Volume 1 +Volume 2+Alternatives Development and Screening Report+Package Concept Plans+All Technical Reports (Excluding Traffic Report) Basic CD=Volume 1 +Volume 2+Alternatives Development and Screening Report+Package Concept Plans Full CD Set=Volume 1 +Volume 2+Alternatives Development and Screening Report+Package Concept Plans+All Technical Reports • • Federal Highway Administration•Federal Transit Administration•Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-564 O U.S.Deportment Colorado Federal Aid Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. otTransportation Suite 180 Federal Highway October 29, 2008 Lakewood, CO 80228 Administration Mr. Don Klima,Director In Reply Refer To: Office of Federal Agency Progr Project 14276 Attn: Carol Legard Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Ste. 803 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Klima: SUBJECT: Draft EIS for the North I-25 Corridor The Notice of Availability for the North I-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be published October 31, 2008. This is a joint lead project with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. We are providing this information for input on the effects to historic properties. Our determinations include adverse effect to six historic properties. There were 91 properties in the Area of Potential Effect identified as eligible or already listed to the • National Register of Historic Places. In 2003, the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),Federal Transit Administration (FTA)and FHWA proposed a merger process under 36 CFR 800.8(c). CDOT, FTA and FHWA have formally arranged with the SHPO to substitute the project's NEPA documents(DEIS and FEIS) in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to accomplish the Section 106 consultation process. The document substitution process is intended to provide a more complete opportunity for comments on the effects to historic properties by the various project alternatives. This will, hopefully,reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties,by providing detailed information about project alternatives and impacts in the DEIS. In reviewing the correspondence, it appears that the ACHP was not included. Attached is the correspondence from December 16,2003 to the SHPO concerning the request. Realizing that the regulations require notification of the ACHP as well as the SHPO,we apologize for the oversight. Previous steps in the document substitution process, as applied in the North I-25 Corridor project,have included identification of the Area of Potential Effect and the identification of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties(NRHP). The Section 106 consultation step involving determinations of NRHP-eligibility for all historic and archaeological resources was accomplished by the traditional method of submitting survey reports to the SHPO and Section 106 participating consulting parties. Once this step was completed, and all questions and comments were satisfactorily addressed, CDOT and FHWA described and made determinations of effect for these properties in the DEIS, arranged by project alternative. • MOVING THE ,,; ::.-'- AMERICAN ECONOMY /.=r Page E-565 2 • All Section 106 consulting parties now have the opportunity to comment upon the determinations of effect and recommended mitigation measures as presented in the DEIS. Following the consultation on effects, any changes as a result of the consultation can be incorporated into the FEIS. Once the consultation on effect has been completed,the mitigation commitments will be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)to be signed by CDOT, FHWA, the SHPO and other appropriate parties. If you have questions or concerns with this process,please call Monica Pavlik at(720)963-3012. Sincerely, iKarla S. Petty, P.E. Division Administrator Enclosures: CD of Draft EIS, Letter Request to SHPO for merger 12/16/2003 • Cc. ave ec ouse, F A • Page E-566 • �S Department Colorado Federal Aid Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. of Transportation Suite 180 Federal Highway October 29,2008 Lakewood, CO 80228 Administration Mr. Tim Carey In Reply Refer To: Attn: Margaret Langworthy Project 14276 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9307 South Wadsworth Littleton, CO 80128-6901 Dear Mr. Carey: Subject: North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)and Draft 4(f)Evaluation,which is now available for public review. This is a joint lead project with Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Thank you for participating as a cooperating agency. A 60 calendar day public review period begins on October 31, 2008 and concludes on December 30, 2008. Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, • including the time and locations of the upcoming public hearings. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik,P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2"d Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley,Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 Sincerely, 7 ,ed firt Karla S. Petty,P.E. Division Administrator Enclosures: 1 Hard Copy of the DEIS/Draft 4(f)Evaluation and 1 CD Cc: Dave Beckhouse,FTA • MOVING THE- dots AMERICAN ECONOMY Page E-567 �1 U.S.Deportment Colorado Federal Ald Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. • of Transportation Suite 180 Federal Highway October 29,2008 Lakewood, CO 80228 Administration Mr. Willie R. Taylor • Director,Office of Environment Department of the Interior 1849 C Street,N.W., Room 2340 Washington,D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Taylor: Subject: North I-25, Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f)Evaluation. Enclosed are 18 copies of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for your review and comment. This is a joint lead project with Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. The Notice of Availability will be published October 31, 2008. There will be a 60 day comment period. Please provide any comments on the document to the Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Division(Attn: Monica Pavlik),at the address shown above, no later than December • 30, 2008. If you have any questions or are unable to provide comments on the enclosed document by December 30, 2008,please contact Ms. Monica Pavlik,of this office, at(720) 963-3012. Sincerely, iiiimzeA_ e12(fej Karla S. Petty,PE Division Administrator Enclosure One Hard Copy DEIS/Draft Section 4(f), 17 on CD Cc: Carol Parr, CDOT Region 4 Dave Beckhouse,FTA NO VIIG THE • AMERICAN ECONOMY Page E-568 • O U.S.Department Colorado Federal Aid Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave. of Transportation Suite 180 Federal Highway October 29, 2008 Lakewood, CO 80228 Administration Mr. Richard Cogswell In Reply Refer To: Federal Railroad Administratior Project 14276 Office of Railroad Development 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. W36324 Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Cogswell: Subject: North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which is now available for public review. This is a joint lead project with Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Thank you for participating as a cooperating agency. A 60 calendar day public review period begins on October 31,2008 and concludes on December 30,2008. • Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis- including the time and locations of the upcoming public hearings. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2"d Street Lakewood,CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720)963-3012 (970) 350-2170 Sincerely, , r fr- Karla S. Petty, P.E. Division Administrator Enclosures: 1 Hard Copy of the DEIS/Draft 4(1) Evaluation and 1 CD Cc• V , DI • • MOVING THE 0700, AMERICAN ECONOMY Page E-569 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A. • Region Four Orr • I OT 1420 2n°Street - - - Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 IMmaliamicitas PART OF TIN NSPORT AT ION November 26,2008 Alison Michael US Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mrs. Michael: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30`", 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30, 2008 to be considered. If you have comments,please send to Attn: Carol Pan at the address below, or by fax (970- 669-0289), or email (carol.parr@dot.state.co.us). Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. • The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2n°Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720) 963-3012 (970)350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carol H. Pan N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-570 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 9 1 Region Four • 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 ncrwr or IRANSPORI AI ION October 30, 2008 Mr. Darrell Flyingman, Governor Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma P.O. Box 38 Concho,OK 73022 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Flyingman: The Notice of Availability for the North I-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) will be published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. You are receiving this document for review as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The public comment period for this project begins October 31, 2008 and ends December 30,2008. An • electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, and comments can be submitted online. Additional information on the project, including the public hearings to be held November 18th, 19th and 20th, is available on the project website as well. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this information,please call me at(970)350-2170 or contact Long Nguyen(CDOT Region 4)at(970) 622-1280. Thanks. Sincerely, (e ^ n Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-571 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A. Region Four • , OT 1420 2n°Street 1 Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 rFPARr Meir of I RANCR)RT4 HON October 30, 2008 Mr. Wallace Coffey, Chairman Commanche Tribal Business Committee Commanche Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 908 Lawton, OK 73502 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Coffey: The Notice of Availability for the North I-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)will be published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. You are receiving this document for review as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The public comment period for this project begins October 31,2008 and ends December 30, 2008. An • electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25cis/, and comments can be submitted online. Additional information on the project, including the public hearings to be held November 18`h, 19th and 20th, is available on the project website as well. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this information, please call me at (970) 350-2170 or contact Long Nguyen(CDOT Region 4)at(970)622-1280. Thanks. Sincerely, ¢ n Carol H.Par N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-572 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION O 1 Region Four Pr• 1420 2nd Street - •-- - - Greeley,CO 80631 970 350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 ( 1 IIFPAXIMFNI 041RANSPDXT4OON October 30, 2008 Mr. Billy Evans Horse, Chairman Kiowa Business Committee Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma P.O. Box 369 Carnegie, OK 73015 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Evans Horse: The Notice of Availability for the North I-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) will be published October 31,2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. You are receiving this document for review as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. • The public comment period for this project begins October 31,2008 and ends December 30, 2008. An electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, and comments can be submitted online. Additional information on the project, including the public hearings to be held November 18th, 19th and 20`h, is available on the project websitc as well. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this information,please call me at(970) 350-2170 or contact Long Nguyen(CDOT Region 4)at(970)622-1280. Thanks. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-573 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four r• OT 1420 2nd Street Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DEPanimas ARTMENTot rxn NSPORTA TRW October 30, 2008 Mr. Richard Brannan, Chairman Northern Arapaho Business Council P.O. Box 396 Fort Washakie,WY 82514 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dcar Mr. Brannan: The Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)will be published October 31,2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. You are receiving this document for review as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The public comment period for this project begins October 31,2008 and ends December 30, 2008. An electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at • www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, and comments can be submitted online. Additional information on the project, including the public hearings to be held November 181h, 19ib and 20`", is available on the project website as well. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this information, please call me at(970) 350-2170 or contact Long Nguyen(CDOT Region 4)at(970)622-1280. Thanks. Sincerely, (� aMIrkAA Carol H. Pan N I-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-574 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , Region Four • OT 1420 2nd Street Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 IItPwR I MINT OF rRANSW)R I AtION October 30, 2008 Mr. Eugene Little Coyote, Chairman Northern Cheyenne Tribe P.O. Box 128 Lame Deer, MT 59043 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Little Coyote: The Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)will be published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. You are receiving this document for review as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The public comment period for this project begins October 31,2008 and ends December 30, 2008. An • electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, and comments can be submitted online. Additional information on the project, including the public hearings to be held November 18th, 19th and 20`h, is available on the project website as well. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this information, please call me at (970) 350-2170 or contact Long Nguyen (CDOT Region 4)at(970)622-1280. Thanks. Sincerely, `AA \p ^ n Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-575 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four '• OT 1420 2o°Street 1 Greeley,CO 80631 (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 DFPARrMFNr OF IRANSPDRTA❑ON October 30, 2008 Mr. George Howell, President Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 881 Little Dee Drive Pawnee, OK 74058 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Howell: The Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) will be published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. You are receiving this document for review as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The public comment period for this project begins October 31,2008 and ends December 30, 2008. An electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at • www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, and comments can be submitted online. Additional information on the project, including the public hearings to be held November 18`h, 19`h and 20`h, is available on the project website as well. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this information, please call me at(970)350-2170 or contact Long Nguyen(CDOT Region 4)at(970) 622-1280. Thanks. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-576 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ OT Region Four 'Pr• L 1420 2nd Street • Greeley,CO 80631 970 350-2170 Fax 970 ( )350-2177 otsnurnttnnoF IunNsvou ruxa October 30,2008 Mr. Clement Frost,Chairman Southern Ute Indian Tribe P.O. Box 737 Ignacio, Colorado 81137 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Frost: The Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) will be published October 31, 2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. You are receiving this document for review as a consulting party under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The public comment period for this project begins October 31, 2008 and ends December 30, 2008. An • electronic version of the comment form is available for your use on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/, and comments can be submitted online. Additional information on the project, including the public hearings to be held November 18`h, 19th and 20th, is available on the project website as well. If you have any questions or concerns with regard to this information,please call me at (970)350-2170 or contact Long Nguyen(CDOT Region 4)at(970) 622-1280. Thanks. Sincerely, atIAMCIAA Carol H. Pan N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-577 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four '• . OT 1420 2nd Street Greeley,CO 80631 , (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2177 nerwarMerrr or ruwrsnrxrwnrnu October 29, 2008 Edward C. Nichols, State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Nichols, The Notice of Availability for the North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)will be published October 31,2008. Enclosed please find a CD of the entire document. We are providing this information to you under the Section 106 process substitution process under which this document will be processed by your office for historic and archaeological resource determination of effects. For the North 1-25 EIS, CDOT and FHWA have formally arranged with your office to substitute the project's NEPA documents (DEIS and FEIS) in lieu of separate correspondence, in order to accomplish the Section 106 consultation process. The document substitution process is intended to provide a more • complete opportunity for comments on the effects to historic properties by the various project alternatives. This will, hopefully, reduce the time and complexity of the review process involving the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties,by providing detailed information about project alternatives and impacts in the DEIS. Previous steps in the document substitution process,as applied in the North 1-25 Corridor project, have included identification of the Area of Potential Effect and the identification of properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties(NRHP). the Section 106 consultation step involving determinations of NRHP-eligibility for all historic and archaeological resources was accomplished by the traditional method of submitting survey reports and site forms to your office and Section 106 participating consulting parties. Once this step was completed, and all questions and comments were satisfactorily addressed CDOT and FHWA described and made dcterminations of effect for these properties in the DEIS, arranged by project alternative. All Section 106 consulting parties now have the opportunity to comment upon the determinations of effect and recommended mitigation measures as presented in the DEIS. Following the consultation on effects,any changes as a result of the consultation can be incorporated into the FEIS. Once the consultation on effect has been completed,the mitigation commitments will be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)to be signed by CDOT, FHWA, the SHPO and other appropriate parties. If you have questions or concerns with this process,please notify me at (970)350-2170 or Monica Pavlik at (720) 963-3012. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr • N I-25 EIS Project Manager "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-578 • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Emir A. I O 1 Region Four • 1 1420 2nd Street .- - ---- - --- Greeley,CO 80631 970 350-2170 Fax 970 ( )350-2177 uevnetMAT OF runNsrcixiA[ION November 26, 2008 Greg Monroe Colorado State Parks 1313 Sherman Street, #618 Denver, CO 80203 RE: North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Monroe: Enclosed for your information is a copy of the North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS), which is currently available for public review. The public review period concludes on December 30`", 2008. Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received by CDOT by December 30,2008 to be considered. If you have comments,please send to Attn: Carol Parr at the address below,or by fax(970- 669-0289), or email (carol.parrgdot.state.co.us). • Additional information is available on the project website at www.cdot.info/northi25eis/. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Carol Parr Monica Pavlik, P.E. Project Manager Environmental Engineer Colorado Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region 4 12300 W. Dakota Avenue Suite 180 1420 2nd Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Greeley, Colorado 80632 (720)963-3012 (970)350-2170 Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carol H. Parr N 1-25 Corridor EIS Project Manager Enclosure North I-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement— 1 CD • "Taking Care To Get You There" Page E-579 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • Page E-580 Agency Coordination After the Release of the Draft EIS • • Page E-581 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • Page E-582 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information cooperation transportation. Regional Transportation Model Discussion MEETING DATE: November 17, 2009 LOCATION: APCD APCD: Jim Dileo, Dale Wells, Lisa Silva CDOT: Jill Schlaefer ATTENDEES: NFRMPO: Suzette Mallette,Arvilla Kirchoff DRCOG: Erik Sabina, Shahida Mirza Jacobs: Gina McAfee, Chris Primus PREPARER: JACOBS Gina McAfee Attendees, Carol Parr, Long Nguyen, Monica Pavlik, Holly Buck, COPIES: Tom Anzia, Dana Ragusa, Gayl Harrison, Jacobs File • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Jill Schlaefer began the meeting by discussing the purpose of the meeting, which is to discuss a regional conformity analysis needed for the entire Preferred Alternative, for which there is insufficient funding. An actual formal conformity run will be done only on Phase I. 2. Suzette asked if there are any guidelines for this type of analysis. Would this be similar to an interim run? Gina described that this is not a conformity run—it is required for NEPA purposes. 3. Dale asked about the derivation of the combined model. 4. Chris described the process used to develop the combined model (see attached handouts). Much of the work to develop the model was done in 2004 and 2005. In 2008 the networks and the land use data sets were updated from information obtained from the two MPOs. 5. Dave asked how the model worked. Chris described the four-step model. 6. Suzette clarified that this combined model is likely not what will be used for a Phase I conformity run. Chris indicated that our most recent networks were collected in spring 2008. 7. Lisa indicated that there will be new emissions budgets for ozone at the end of February • 2010, so the Phase I conformity run will need to consider this. Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-583 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. Regional Transportation Model Discussion November 17, 2009 2 of 2 8. Dale would like an ARC GIS-based file so he can look at it based on the different geographic areas involved. 9. Lisa and Dave and Suzette asked about the pollutants to be analyzed. Gina and Jill stated they will be the same as in the DEIS: CO, VOC, NO., PM10, various MSATs. We will also be providing some estimates of ammonia. 10. Erik asked about the coverage area. The area to the east, which includes the 8-hour ozone non-attainment area, is not currently in either the DRCOG or the NFRMPO areas. Everyone agreed that the study area used for the EIS does not have to be identical to that used for other purposes. 11. Dale, Lisa, and Jim are all OK with using this combined model for this purpose. 12. Jim asked if we would make sure that whatever we provide to Dale is tested to make sure it works and is easily understood and quality assured. We will do this. 13. The schedule for this is to provide the ARC GIS data to Dale by end of January/early • February. 14. MOVES is coming out by the end of the year, supposedly. We will need to figure out if we are going to be using this. MOVES will include 0O2. We will probably be coming to a decision point on the NEPA process for this project close to the end of the grace period for using MOVES. J:\_Transportation\071609.400\_VJVXV8110_NI25 T010\manage\mtgs\minutes\APCD_RTM discussion mtg mins_111709.doc • Page E-584 • `I er t - z5 \ s Ifuffokic N ©t1. P7, 2 9 itwo___, Aoptei renW kk°e_ &e-tiIos g;nd. Mca.cee®Jceabs.c4v - � <TVS itirA 5 '��.«13S ckr;� e�iv-„..,g ei-aeobcrt,.,.., _ Dale. (At�(is Apc it �1�i, w irs-ereg-..e,Cc).us �ISQ cV�/VC , W (t Sa_s-jv(A&stire_.4 La A ♦ l vs i. i/ as. . ^ _, of SAIL c'c, 31m Dl t to / pc) drm• d i ieov slat co.us siut(A L Nu 6; Di-26.o sin,irger egeirci . oJ7 • Page E-585 North I-25 Corridor Regional Transportation Model Discussion • CDPHE,APCD Office 1:30pm November 17,2009 AGENDA Introductions Purpose of discussion - Decide on transportation modeling input for regional emissions significance modeling North I-25 Preferred Alternative project • Preferred Alternative • Phasing of Project AQ Conformity Issues • Non-fiscally constrained regional AQ conformity FHWA requirements • Combined Transportation Model Emissions modeling for emissions significance( Non-fiscally constrained conformity) • Page E-586 NORTH I25 EISan.:. information. cooperation transportation Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative was recommended by the TAC/RCC on July 23, 2009. It includes a variety of multimodal improvements: • Two new I-25 Tolled Express lanes(TEL)between SH-14 and US-36, one TEL lane in each direction buffer-separated; • Two new I-25 general purpose lanes between SH-14 and SH-66, one new additional lane in each direction; • Interchange improvements at 20 locations; • Commuter rail operating as an extension of RTD FasTracks North Metro rail service between Thornton and downtown Fort Collins, with a connection to RTD FasTracks Northwest Rail in Longmont; • Express Bus operating in the I-25 TEL lanes to downtown Denver, originating in Fort Collins and Greeley; • Express Bus operating in the I-25 TEL lanes to DIA,via E-470; • Commuter Bus operating on US-85 between Greeley and downtown Denver. The North I-25 EIS Preferred Alternative is depicted on the following two graphics. • • 1 Federal Highway Administration.Federal Transit Administration. Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-587 Recommended NORTH 1-25 MIN EIS Preferred Alternative information cooperation transportation LEGEND 25 Tolled Express Lanes General Purpose Lanes We on minim, Express Bus li Correctgeometric deficienciesand Commuter Bus e . MountainVisla replaceaginginfrastructure Commuter Rail CR1 • 1.52 miles of passing track 14 Ault 0 Interchange Upgrades west of existing BNSF track. ----....„,„i;•:CR2 6/2 M��++��**, Number of Lanes' Fort • Ilin °i°r" ? es I General Purpose/Tolled ExpressC. CR34• , e..qr • O Express Bus Transit Station nests severance Eaton 5 n Commuter Bus Transit Station •Ei 3 iZ Lucerne CI Commuter Rail Transit Station Windsor O Potential Commuter Rail 34 Loy :- nd .. ,.s 3Ivd E66 EBr •i 1 Operational & Maintenance CR4 E ' X6/2 EBn t • -.r• Facility IN Potential Commuter Bus 2.16 miles of passing track R5 "piGreeley + CB Operational & Maintenance east of existing BNSF track Garden city Facility g �) Evan • CB3 LARtMER a 0 CRso FasTracks Rail Line `a Salle 2.17 miles of passing track Ca • - hastowna east of existing BNSF track. sEC E r o FasTracks / RTD Transit Station •6 ® Nllllken RID Boundary Ill 4. G r 2.15 miles of passing track east of existing BNSF track. . TRANSIT STATION LOCATIONS ' : 6/2III Commuter Rail Express Bus 36 = R 34 CR1 Fort Collins Downtown I it: ' South Fort Collins Transit 0 M. r iattevlll Transit Center - BNSF and Center - US 287 and f 7 r• t 66 _ _ _ • C 34 Maple St IHarmony Rd. Lon 9 m o n j 1 t CR2 CSU - BNSF between East Fort Collins - 1-25 and University Ave. and W. Pitkin Harmony Rd. • _._ i 19, B EBi St Windsor - 1-25 and SH 392 36 CR3 South Fort Collins Transit Crossroads Loveland ED Center - US 287 and Y Firestone 4.26 miles of passing track Harmony Rd betweenCrossroads Blvd. e and US 34 rick CR4 No2rth h Loveland BNSF and West Greeley - US 34 and • ' : 1 1 ® r C85 SH 257 Rort CR5 Downtown Loveland Greeley - US 34 and 83rd • R . I.-lbaeono peon BNSF and approximately Ave 6/2 6th St. CR6 Berthoud - BNSF and ' tB7 Greeley Downtown Transfer •, - oulder inp .:- 76 SH 56 Center 8th Ave. and ; 8th St _�• CR7 North Longmont - BNSF . EB8 Berthoud - 1-25 and SH 56 93 • O • • r lillir and SH 66 Egg Firestone 125 and 36 Louis's,' .1,1ir CR8 Longmont Sugar Mill. SH 119 e north of alignment. south of Northwest — Rogers Rd. �' Right-of-Way 09 EB1U FredericWDacono - 1-25 Rail •Corridor S�perlo a Broomfield N !, CR9 Erie - 1-25 and CR B and SH 52 y, I, c • neon CB7 ' Preservation EB11 , Broomfield - 1-25 and SH 7 • • oon -- EB1,' DIAi. Nor 72 f E47' Denver Commuter Bus k North Metro International Airport CB1 •cloy • US 85 a CB6 Brighton - US 85 and . • 6/2 2 Corridor CB2 uth Greeley St Ave. and CB7 South Brighton US 85 a _ r,uuuull, th st. E-470 121 • ► ;g CB3 ' • s - US 85 and 42nd St CB8 Commerce City - 69th and Colorado ,uS CB4 �:tteville - US 85 and Grand � e A - . 70 C85 is Lupton - US 85 and fill Den vs '. _ 40 Denve 6 man 70 I en er 70 n 225 ' e0 2 4 6 8 10 rr� 'ai_- . 'Miles North 08-202 9/29109 Page E-588 Recommended Preferred Alternative 0 Existing No-Action Recommended Interchange Location Configuration Preferred Alternative SH1 Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond Mountain Vista Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond SH 14 Substandard Partial Cloverleaf Reconstructed Diamond Prospect Road Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond Harmony road Standard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond SH392 Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Tight Diamond Crossroads Boulevard Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond US 34 Substandard Partial Cloverleaf Dual Directional / Diamond SH 402 Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond LCR 16 Substandard Off Ramps Reconstructed Diamond SH 60 Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond SH 56 Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond WCR 34 Substandard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond SH 66 Standard Diamond No Improvement SH 119 Standard Diamond Bridge Widening SH 52 Standard Diamond Bridge Widening III WCR 8 Standard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond SH 7 Standard Diamond Reconstructed Diamond E-470 Fully Directional No Improvement 144th Avenue Standard Diamond No Improvement 136th Avenue Standard Diamond No Improvement 120th Avenue Standard Diamond No Improvement 104th Avenue Substandard Diamond Structure Rehabilitation Thornton Parkway Substandard Diamond Structure Rehabilitation 84th Avenue Substandard Diamond Structure Rehabilitation 184 152' 12' 36' 12' 12' 32' Median _ 12', 12' 36' 12' 4 ♦ 1 P. 12' 24' 17 _ 56' Median 12' _ 24' 12' Shldr 3 Travel TB. Shldr, Shldr; TEL 3 Travel Shldr, hldr 2 Travel thldr Shldr. 2 Travel Shldr Lanes with with Lanes Lanes Lanes 4' EB EB 4' ' Bu Buffer _____mallor____________--atilmir _ I :-.r air a SH 1 to SH 14 SH 14 to SH 7 (4 General Purpose Lanes) (Tolled Express Lanes - Buffer Separated) 178' a 12' 17 36' 12' 12' 12' 12' i, 36' 12', 12'„ Shldr Aux. 3 Travel Lanes TEL Shldr Shldr TEL 3 Travel Lanes Aux. Shldr Lane with with Lane I EB EB 0 M ' 4' .4-- _0, 4 • Buffer Buffer owe _JILOR SH 7 to US 36 ® +F- 4 (Tolled Expess Lanes - 1 Buffer Separatedwith Auxiliary Lanes) 09-124-10 9/30/09 Page E-589 North 1-25 EIS North Front Range & DRCOG Traffic Analysis Zones Ill T- 1 Jsi II leaIftal . eilli lwokam. . l —..s, 1 ..r.itU■ - . 1 Wvi*iM s" ill �'I 1 u�o_t_ r nililLnititilinil Idier riiirt.. a1 ■■■'iiirlitissn_:.�M� nl a -:�===iii rfl!`1 r _ �\■�■�■■� 1.._ iii �r2!:aril a ,'. ' Yflkllf ir hj Iilel 1=r Model Overlap : ' ( r ac ,r - ....., " 1 Initialirch ;iiiiir 411"11�r�ri�r■�a1/.■ �■.r..e I■■■ i I11.i a :� ts=g/11 .: .,. �1r�- ICS ti .. „ ..ism.....maramm nil= 0 itsigutiorgoi_Ne....pi 2.. amossioncgiaionillirigiir reia,i_rnosn`::■n■■■ /Air if Illirivatiammtizaa, r ra I 1 4■\T 731;Einiti FA_;� irk IN 1111L 4 goort i'll-iii1: 'is /,fir aleaI hi itionomifirem-:;:iriaire.„&r.ns. I _, ki W_, tt illiSr lit .�r-..•f• •-= . 1--; ;4 ; s.'• � `r�na ib ` 1•j rh!w:'i .f;::a1.1r...:i,e !I11 rll�/■■ '�_ L,7 .-I�I ll IIIt': f1tLl. •ar..-Atlr �Irarr■■ �� 1��I�i u,.•.• •. a ..�. .� ►�..��..�1,� liroNiDs �l.�.`*`:.x..11/�I!:•;!� �,Ic..,��i ■in,. strati ,:1 /•1 71...0 . ,. t. .q a�f l 4 lisilacaumpl.i it.istaLtriltr-2.1-, ,..7,..41t,sys, ,4311.1 taVirdifilLA �+� sr�1tvia l s elsor�_ i m gr �> /l ItlitpTipk,iativiiiirPitragil IS kitilefic"-no Tibet , lit ....vpi Filli �r it Miall‘erill , Legend I NFR TransCAD TAZs 5 0 5 Miles DRCOG TransCAD TAZs N Municipalities February 9, 2004 Page E-590 NORTH 1-25 • EIS Technical Approach to FEIS Analysis of Entire Preferred Alternative information. cooperation. transportation. Purpose of the Analysis: To show the entire Preferred Alternative would not jeopardize conformity if placed in the fiscally constrained RTPs. Background: The Combined Travel Demand Model was developed for the North 1-25 EIS. At the onset of the project, it was recognized that a multi-modal model that fully handled inter-regional trips was needed. The development of the combined model was conducted under the review of the Travel Forecast Working Group, composed of representatives from DRCOG, NFRMPO, RTD, CDOT, and the consultant team including two nationally recognized travel model experts. Travel Data Source Options Separate MPO Models Pros Cons • The technical AQ model process to • Each respective model would need to be accept input data sets from the coded and operated with the North 1-25 respective models for a full conformity Preferred Alternative analysis is already set up • The separate models do not account for • • The models are the completely up-to- date MPO versions the overall VMT effect because there are no long trips between the areas that "react"to the project improvements • There is no way to effectively include the transit improvements in the separate models • There is an overlap area that would produce some duplicative VMT Combined Model Pros Cons • The Preferred Alternative is already • It doesn't reflect the latest and greatest coded and the model run performed technical improvements of the MPO • The bi-regional effect of highway and models (but does reflect the latest 2035 transit improvements is reflected in the socio-economic data set and networks) travel activity • The AQ process may not be set up for • FHWA has agreed to use of the running conformity with its combined input combined model for the EIS set Note:the technical approach to ROD analysis(including a conformity run)of Phase 1 will be determined at a later date. ]:\_Transportation\071609.400\working\prlmus\Technical approach to FEIS_Pros&Cons.doc • November 17,2009 Page E-591 JACOBS • MEMO TO: Cindy Einspahr— NRCS District Conservationist DATE: November 12, 2010 Greeley Service Center 4302 West 9th Street Road Greeley, CO 80634-1317 FROM: Misty Swan SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS PROJECT NO.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Bob Quinlan; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farmland that have been identified in the North 1-25 FEIS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Misty Swan Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Environmental Planner • 303-820-5267 Misty.Swan( Jacobs.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encompasses the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east (Figure 1). The Preferred Alternative includes the following elements: • General Purpose Lanes: One new general purpose lane in each direction of 1-25 between State Highway (SH) 66 and SH 14. • Tolled Express Lanes (TEL): One buffer-separated TEL in each direction of 1-25 from the existing High Occupancy Vehicle/Toll lanes at 84th Avenue to SH 14. • Interchange Improvements: 16 improved interchanges along the corridor. • Express Bus: Express bus service with 13 stations along 1-25, US 34 and Harmony Road with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver, and from Fort Collins to Denver International Airport (DIA). • Page E-592 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 2 IIIFIGURE 1 : REGIONAL STUDY AREA LEGEND Burlington Northern Santa Fe w•IIIngton r Great Western Railroad \ t' ,- 4 Union Pacific Railroad 287N , I /. o Abandoned Railroad ROW \ : k1:1%,:e Ault US or Interstate Highway Fort Collin ,I °` w 85 State Highway Thnnath trroranc• Eaton 25 - Lucian c' - j 287 wlndsor �1 --- J 1 f `?_ u Lovel nd ` . Greele 602.— & ' cordon City �i \ 25t Evans LARIMER Cann on •°D • Johnstown �y Lo Sall 6 36 I (TTtcs y �" GScr•stLid CS fed i 0 .1 • f / % 0 , i J +'V Mead , D . /latte►lll ee / Longmont T _ / - . t#.t - 3$ - BOW es 19 Firaston• 287 F •d•rlct Pliant t , 52 . - — '' III ff,, />C Firt r- Oacon* ten - r Boulder '"' - L yeti* - W< ( " 36 Louisville (`-'- Sri on Swede Broomfield Thornton ^��r r co �— c Con y I 72 No yl•ryr Vi st enter E470 Donn, International 2 Airport Si JEFFERSON - 7 Union Station • ® 40 i 2 4 a_ yvL� w North 6 Denver r v0 / III Page E-593 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 3 • Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service with nine stations connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and • Thornton using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, generally paralleling United States Highway (US) 287 and tying into FasTracks Northwest Corridor Rail in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. The commuter rail extends south to the North Metro northern terminus. • Commuter Bus: Commuter bus service with eight stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. • Congestion Management: Accommodations for ridesharing, carpools, and vanpools, along with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, signal timing, ramp metering on 1-25 and signage could also be improved. IMPACT ANALYSIS Impacts were calculated in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) using soil data downloaded from the NRCS Soil Data Mart and the limits of construction as determined by project design. Soils within Census 2000 urbanized areas and existing highway right-of-way were extracted from the dataset and excluded from analysis. The total impact to farmland associated with the Preferred Alternative for the entire project corridor is 977.15 acres, which includes 5.04 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 46.60 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 925.50 acres of Prime Farmland.' Because the project crosses county boundaries, coordination is required with multiple NRCS Service Centers. Each NRCS District Conservationist will receive only the impacts that occur within the counties under their jurisdictions. In Weld County, the Preferred Alternative would result in impacts to 3.66 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 38.73 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 342.52 acres of Prime Farmland. Impacts that would occur in Weld County are shown by location in Figure 2. Impacts are also reported for • NRCS completion and signature on Form NRCS CPA-106. Please send the completed form to: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 707 17`" Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Attention: Misty Swan For purposes of this study, Prime Farmland includes prime farmland if certain conditions are present,and includes prime farmland if irrigated, prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season, prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium, and prime farmland if irrigated and the product of soil erodibility and • climate factor does not exceed 60. Page E-594 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 4 • FIGURE 2 : DIRECT FARMLAND IMPACTS — PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1 (, 1 • Weld County , i Impacts to Farmlands Loveland ® I . Farmland of Local Importance • J L_` ' t . Farmland of Statewide Importance t In Farmland iflrngated' 1 1 Limits of Construction • Preferred Alternative I r _ 1 1 _ County Boundaries • LARIMER s : WELD City Boundaries [ I ' Land would be considered Prime Farmland if it were 1 (a'" Irrigated (bi Protected from flooding or not frequently 1 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 11 -ii 60 (e) Irngated and the product of I (soil erodibrlity) x C (climate factor)does not exceed 60 L1 Johnstown Milliken Berthoud ' 1 �" ` l 1 1 I Gilcrest f. L. . • Mead s, Platteville as I I I Longmont I -,T - - -4 ____, I I 1 • 1 �` I Frederick e4 I BOULDER ` 1 I I I It Niwot I l• �� Dacono = Fort Lupton I Gunbarrel 1 I II ....I I •••• _ I ..flr. i Erie WELD f____.„ Lafayette I _ _ _' I I I t I 0 2 4 I North IN= IMI I Miles I xIll Page E-595 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS • PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 11/11/10 Sheet t of 1.Name of Project North I-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2.Type of Project Transportation 6.County and Stale Larimer County,Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size EI (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). Yes No 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: y Acres: 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment CorridorA Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 447 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 447 0 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points • 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 11 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 6 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 16 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 1 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 21 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 O 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 75 0 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 75 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 75 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: 446.94 YES O NO 5. Reason For Selection: Best meets the project's purpose and need of meeting long-term travel needs between Denver Metro Area and rapidly growing population centers along I-25 corridor north to Ft.Collins-Welling area by improving safety and mobility/access, replacing aging and obsolete highway infrastructure,and providing for modal alternatives and interrelationships--while minimizing environmental impacts. Signature of Person Completing this Part: (DATE • 11/11/1O NOTE:Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-596 NRCS-CPA-106(Reverse) CORRIDOR -TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA • The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor-type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent-15 points 90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent-10 points 90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed(managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent-20 points 90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected-20 points Site is not protected-0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s)containing the site(before the project)as large as the average-size farming unit in the County? • (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture,Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with$1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger-10 points Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average,down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average-9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e.,farm suppliers,equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available-5 points Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available-0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns,other storage building,fruit trees and vines,field terraces,drainage, irrigation,waterways,or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment-20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment-19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment-0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use,reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus,the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? • Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 point(s) Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points Page E-597 JACOBS • MEMO TO: Todd Boldt— NRCS District Conservationist DATE: November 12, 2010 Fort Collins Service Center 2150 Centre Ave Bldg A, Suite 116 Fort Collins, CO 80526-8121 FROM: Misty Swan SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS PROJECT NO.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Bob Quinlan; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farmland that have been identified in the North 1-25 FEIS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Misty Swan Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Environmental Planner • 303-820-5267 Mistv.Swan(a�Jacobs.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encompasses the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east (Figure 1). The Preferred Alternative includes the following elements: • General Purpose Lanes: One new general purpose lane in each direction of 1-25 between State Highway (SH) 66 and SH 14. • Tolled Express Lanes (TEL): One buffer-separated TEL in each direction of 1-25 from the existing High Occupancy Vehicle/Toll lanes at 84th Avenue to SH 14. • Interchange Improvements: 16 improved interchanges along the corridor. • Express Bus: Express bus service with 13 stations along 1-25, US 34 and Harmony Road with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver, and from Fort Collins to Denver International Airport (DIA). • Page E-598 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 2 IDFIGURE 1 : REGIONAL STUDY AREA LEGEND Burlington Northern Santa Fe ; s j Wellington Great Western Railroad \ r 1 ite F i Union Pacific Railroad 287 , Abandoned Railroad ROW ? Ault 14 a ` o,. US or Interstate Highway Fort tOllin State Highwayrf 85 - - - Tlrtlnath Severance Eaton 1 r. ao4.. 7 / 2) Lucern 287 c'N, �N, - wlndsw T _ Lovel nd �} --- ? 34 N. Greele -N l fie _ 1 I Garden City ' �lie . ?5T Evens LARIMER �'� e^ �� ; Johnstown La Sall e GI M 36 se ertcho.C a .0". / C crest `9. III O • ..../I w ' Mud : jl " } rt 51 Platte IP Longmont , r, / � , jr...,,,_ - � 368O1 nFD 85 ; " Firestone D • 1287 . . F ederlck I Nlwet ) I 5.2 ffMt PI!PIP,--'" \ OneAte ton trios Boulder �. 19 93 36 Louisville 7' Sri on Surma* Broomfield n Thornton > lill (I. — _ \re'!_' ..----- Corn ce ` C r M No glens' ater Denver tt r E470 International Airport 121 JEIFFEn ;iUrV 7. 0 z ° ° io p!LT . _i'f: \ �� — Le� North I • Page E-599 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 3 • Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service with nine stations connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and • Thornton using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, generally paralleling United States Highway (US) 287 and tying into FasTracks Northwest Corridor Rail in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. The commuter rail extends south to the North Metro northern terminus. • Commuter Bus: Commuter bus service with eight stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. • Congestion Management: Accommodations for ridesharing, carpools, and vanpools, along with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, signal timing, ramp metering on 1-25 and signage could also be improved. IMPACT ANALYSIS Impacts were calculated in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) using soil data downloaded from the NRCS Soil Data Mart and the limits of construction as determined by project design. Soils within Census 2000 urbanized areas and existing highway right-of-way were extracted from the dataset and excluded from analysis. The total impact to farmland associated with the Preferred Alternative for the entire project corridor is 977.15 acres, which includes 5.04 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 46.60 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 925.50 acres of Prime Farmland.' Because the project crosses county boundaries, coordination is required with multiple NRCS Service Centers. Each NRCS District Conservationist will receive only the impacts that occur within the counties under their jurisdictions. In Larimer County, the Preferred Alternative would result in impacts to 1.39 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 4.18 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 441.38 acres of Prime Farmland. Impacts that would occur in Larimer County are shown by location in Figure 2. Impacts are also reported for • NRCS completion and signature on Form NRCS CPA-106. Please send the completed form to: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Attention: Misty Swan For purposes of this study, Prime Farmland includes prime farmland if certain conditions are present, and includes prime farmland if irrigated, prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season, prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium, and prime farmland if irrigated and the product of soil erodibility and • climate factor does not exceed 60. Page E-600 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 4 IIIFIGURE 2: DIRECT FARMLAND IMPACTS — PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Larimer County imoacts to Farmlands_ I , - Farmland of Local Importance III Farmland of Statewide Importance I 1 t mg Farmland d Irrigated' I Limits of Construction - Preferred Alternative it I r _ 1 I t _ • County Boundaries ' City Boundaries I I • Land would be considered Prime Farmland if it were I (a)Irrigated t I (0)Protected from flooding or not frequently 1 flooded during the growing season h , (o)Drained and either protected from flooding or , not frequently flooded during the growing season (d)Irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium I (e)Irrigated and the product of I (sod crodialny> x C f I (climate factor)does not exceed 60 I I t I I L_ f '•I I — I . 1 `I I 1 — ( I . I --Jr I F7 _ Fort Collins _ l� 1 I 1 • (/ -- 7' ti 1 ]._ r I 1 _' __i. Timnath i _ i Severance f _ j I • 287 8 I y I I I .r I I I 1 Windsor (Q I . , I , . i 1 . I , Loveland "' I • O 34 • nr f� i ,17- -—,f f , 1 k I I LARIMER . I I WELD , 1 I I 1 I . i — FEE. — . - `...1..-- Johnstown Milliken 1 _. Berthoud • • — I I 'Gilcrest, G ' I / ^. 0 2 4 I H0 , o,tn 1 Miles I Ir Page E-601 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS • PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 11/11/10 Sheet 1 or 1.Name of Project North 1.25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2.Type of Project Transportation 6.County and State Lorimer County,Colorado PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES El NO El 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: y Acres: 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 447 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 447 0 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 11 • 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 6 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 16 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 1 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 21 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 75 0 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 75 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 75 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: 446.94 YES O NO ❑ 5. Reason For Selection: Best meets the project's purpose and need of meeting long-term travel needs between Denver Metro Area and rapidly growing population centers along 1-25 corridor north to Ft.Collins-Welling area by improving safety and mobility/access, replacing aging and obsolete highway infrastructure,and providing for modal alternatives and interrelationships--while minimizing environmental impacts. Signature of Person Completing this Part: DATE • 11/11/10 NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-602 NRCS-CPA-106(Reverse) CORRIDOR -TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA • The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor-type site configuration connecting two distant points,and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent-15 points 90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent-10 points 90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed(managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent-20 points 90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected-20 points Site is not protected-0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s)containing the site(before the project)as large as the average-size farming unit in the County? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of • Agriculture,Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with$1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger-10 points Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average,down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average-9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project- 1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e.,farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmers markets? All required services are available-5 points Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available-0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns,other storage building,fruit trees and vines,field terraces,drainage,irrigation,waterways,or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment-20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment- 19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment-0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus,the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted- 1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? • Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 point(s) Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points Page E-603 JACOBS • MEMO TO: Boyd Byelich — NRCS District Conservationist DATE: November 12, 2010 Longmont Service Center 9595 Nelson Road Ste D Longmont, CO 80501-6359 FROM: Misty Swan SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS PROJECT NO.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Bob Quinlan; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farmland that have been identified in the North 1-25 FEIS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Misty Swan Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Environmental Planner • 303-820-5267 M isty.Swa n(a J a co bs.co m PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS)to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encompasses the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east (Figure 1). The Preferred Alternative includes the following elements: • General Purpose Lanes: One new general purpose lane in each direction of 1-25 between State Highway (SH) 66 and SH 14. • Tolled Express Lanes (TEL): One buffer-separated TEL in each direction of 1-25 from the existing High Occupancy Vehicle/Toll lanes at 84th Avenue to SH 14. • Interchange Improvements: 16 improved interchanges along the corridor. • Express Bus: Express bus service with 13 stations along 1-25, US 34 and Harmony Road with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver, and from Fort Collins to Denver International Airport (DIA). • Page E-604 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 2 IIIFIGURE 1 : REGIONAL STUDY AREA LEGEND .- t.. . Burlington Northern Santa Fe 1 wellington — — — Great Western Railroad � �M" / } i Union Pacific Railroad 287ti - - - - - - - - Abandoned Railroad ROW C. 14 AaM US or Interstate Highway Fort coil in 14 ° + C. � O 85 State Highway r ' — — — .� Timnath fwerantP [aen t 287 Salads*, 7 Lovel nd I eysirtr# � 7 ��- 34 N. Greele Garden CityCJ� . I 2 \ `"?-3 5 Evans LARIMER I Cam on "03 o• :obnsto::l6fiii,;;Jr4 La salt � (I.:4317-ni gyp. (48 '. Ill • , a -1 Mrs WA }Z Plattevlil " a _ Lon , � � � ° . • - 2" a 7 . . ( �- ,, 9 . _r I In — 85 B O U L aat*na 1 . i ;L D 287 . / t Paden It ,-• 52 ?citi] `— -' -fort I��- - - h Iueten Rd", �`- Boulder 9 r T L ett e 7 7 . .93 36 Louisville Sri *n Super, groomfleld Thornton "\'�" }` Corn gee n \ C f Hort alone • St aster E470 Denver International Airport n 19 JEFFERSON - �_ . * berve 7• Union Station 40 • 0 2 /4 6 $ 10 y� N• 6 - Denver nth Ave SI Page E-605 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 3 • Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service with nine stations connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and • Thornton using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, generally paralleling United States Highway (US) 287 and tying into FasTracks Northwest Corridor Rail in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. The commuter rail extends south to the North Metro northern terminus. • Commuter Bus: Commuter bus service with eight stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. • Congestion Management: Accommodations for ridesharing, carpools, and vanpools, along with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, signal timing, ramp metering on 1-25 and signage could also be improved. IMPACT ANALYSIS Impacts were calculated in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) using soil data downloaded from the NRCS Soil Data Mart and the limits of construction as determined by project design. Soils within Census 2000 urbanized areas and existing highway right-of-way were extracted from the dataset and excluded from analysis. The total impact to farmland associated with the Preferred Alternative for the entire project corridor is 977.15 acres, which includes 5.04 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 46.60 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 925.50 acres of Prime Farmland.' Because the project crosses county boundaries, coordination is required with multiple NRCS Service Centers. Each NRCS District Conservationist will receive only the impacts that occur within the counties under their jurisdictions. In the Boulder Valley, the Preferred Alternative would result in impacts to 3.70 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 73.09 acres of Prime Farmland. Impacts that would occur in the Boulder Valley are shown by location in Figure 2. Impacts are also reported for NRCS completion and signature on Form • NRCS CPA-106. Please send the completed form to: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Attention: Misty Swan For purposes of this study, Prime Farmland includes prime farmland if certain conditions are present, and includes prime farmland if irrigated, prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season, prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium, and prime farmland if irrigated and the product of soil erodibility and • climate factor does not exceed 60. Page E-606 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 4 IIIFIGURE 2 : DIRECT FARMLAND IMPACTS — PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE i [ Boulder/Broomfield Counties I Johi Impacts to Farmlands -- 1 - Farmland of Local Importance BerthoudI 5s IN Farmland of Statewide Importance — ' - Farmland if Irrigated' 1 I Limits of Construction - Preferred Alternative t • I I I County Boundaries r i J I City Boundaries I I ' Land would be considered Prime farmland if it were I (a) Irrigated (b) Protected from flooding or not frequently 1 flooded during the growing season (C) Drained and either protected from flooding or I not frequently flooded dunng the growing season 1 (d) Irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium I (e) tmgated and the product of I (soil erodrbblrty) x C Mead (climate factory does not exceed 60 I Platteville 1__ 4 sr. z - .__ I I I 1 Longmont , ' 1 I 4 __ I i I ' Frederick i I f _ BOULDER IIII 1~ Niwot , id _z Dacono 5' J Fort Lupton I G/ unbarrel ' I I I - - 1 I I ' _ 1 _ I I 1 J Erie ; , WELD W Lafayette _ _ I II I 1 I T Louisville ' __ • Brighton 1�NW It i j I ' 1 I • I Superior . ' -' ` - - - I BROOMFIELD i ‘, ADAMS • ' - 1 �� Broomfield I an 1 1'el • _ 1 1 1, . t Northglenn r I 1 I— — • \t 1 36 ' ril® 0 2 4 j t North + Miles ' Thornton Commerce City ID Page E-607 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS • PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 11/11/10 ° sheet 1 of 1 1.Name of Project North 1-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2.Type of Project Transportation 6.County and State Latimer County,Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size 0 (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES No 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: e/ Acres: y, 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 447 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 447 0 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation lnfoimation Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0.100 Points) PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points • 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 11 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 6 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 16 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 1 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 21 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 75 0 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 75 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2lines) 260 75 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: 446.94 YES 0 NO 5. Reason For Selection: Best meets the project's purpose and need of meeting long-term travel needs between Denver Metro Area and rapidly growing population centers along 1-25 corridor north to Ft.Collins-Welling area by improving safety and mobility/access, replacing aging and obsolete highway infrastructure,and providing for modal alternatives and interrelationships--while minimizing environmental impacts. Signature of Person Completing this Part: DATE • 11/11/10 NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-608 N RCS-CPA-1 06(Reverse) CORRIDOR -TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA • The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor-type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent-15 points 90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent- 10 points 90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed(managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent-20 points 90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected-20 points Site is not protected-0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s)containing the site(before the project)as large as the average-size farming unit in the County? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of • Agriculture,Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with$1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger-10 points Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average,down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average-9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project- 1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e.,farm suppliers,equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available-5 points Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available-0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns,other storage building,fruit trees and vines,field terraces,drainage, irrigation,waterways,or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment-20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment- 19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment-0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus,the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? • Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 point(s) Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points Page E-609 JACOBS • MEMO TO: Cindy Einspahr— NRCS District DATE: November 12, 2010 Conservationist Brighton Service Center 57 W Bromley Ln Brighton, CO 80601-3025 FROM: Misty Swan SUBJECT: North I-25 EIS PROJECT NO.: 071609.400 Prime and Important Farmland Impacts/Form NRCS CPA-106 COPIES: Bob Quinlan; File The purpose of this memo is to present the impacts to Prime and Important Farmland that have been identified in the North 1-25 FEIS. Form NRCS CPA-106 is attached for your review and signature. We would appreciate return of the completed form within 30 days. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at: Misty Swan Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Environmental Planner • 303-820-5267 M isty.Swan(a�Jacobs.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), have initiated preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 70 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The purpose and need for the improvements is to address mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along 1-25, as well as to provide for a greater variety of transportation choices and support economic growth. The regional study area that encompasses the proposed improvements extends from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) routes on the east (Figure 1). The Preferred Alternative includes the following elements: • General Purpose Lanes: One new general purpose lane in each direction of 1-25 between State Highway (SH) 66 and SH 14. • Tolled Express Lanes (TEL): One buffer-separated TEL in each direction of 1-25 from the existing High Occupancy Vehicle/Toll lanes at 84th Avenue to SH 14. • Interchange Improvements: 16 improved interchanges along the corridor. • Express Bus: Express bus service with 13 stations along 1-25, US 34 and Harmony Road with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver, and from Fort Collins to Denver International Airport (DIA). • Page E-610 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 2 IIIFIGURE 1 : REGIONAL STUDY AREA LEGEND Burlington Northern Santa Fe Wellington Great Western Railroad 1 r Union Pacific Railroad 287 4 Abandoned Railroad ROW Ault US or Interstate Highway Fort Cojup o •`I 85 State Highway r t 'nth • P tttit.n Zlament y: T 287 N\ Motor J Love 1 n d I ,‘_ 34 N. Greele } Garden City' \ Evans _ LARIMER Cam .n .� u Johnstown La Sall o ci 0 }36 i I J h.�_y MIIIIY.n ‘__ O•rthosid /__ G arm • ; / • • _ w L IM.atl T1 Fl.tt.Nll I 0 1 Longmont '/ 10'' 0' �r . 36 I 85 Flr.ston• 119 9 287 i •d.rick Hint , 52 a 52 NJr. Fort " re Ono* ton Erl• �, • C Boulder - it(t''' - 7 Sri on 36 Loulsvlll• it*.rl• Broomfield Thornton i — __-_\,—<::._ Co C co Y2 Nort plena ' D.nv.r O7Tt niter E470 international Airport 121 JEFFERSON • X ,— S%•• 3tetan c ' ® WjI4o ' G �= 4 si 6 8 10 / 6 De verii. �u.I.t North Page E-611 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 3 • Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service with nine stations connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and • Thornton using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, generally paralleling United States Highway (US) 287 and tying into FasTracks Northwest Corridor Rail in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. The commuter rail extends south to the North Metro northern terminus. • Commuter Bus: Commuter bus service with eight stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. • Congestion Management: Accommodations for ridesharing, carpools, and vanpools, along with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, signal timing, ramp metering on 1-25 and signage could also be improved. IMPACT ANALYSIS Impacts were calculated in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) using soil data downloaded from the NRCS Soil Data Mart and the limits of construction as determined by project design. Soils within Census 2000 urbanized areas and existing highway right-of-way were extracted from the dataset and excluded from analysis. The total impact to farmland associated with the Preferred Alternative for the entire project corridor is 977.15 acres, which includes 5.04 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 46.60 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 925.50 acres of Prime Farmland.' Because the project crosses county boundaries, coordination is required with multiple NRCS Service Centers. Each NRCS District Conservationist will receive only the impacts that occur within the counties under their jurisdictions. In Adams County, the Preferred Alternative would result in impacts to 68.51 acres of Prime Farmland. Impacts that would occur in Adams County are shown by location in Figure 2. Impacts are also reported for NRCS completion and signature on Form NRCS CPA-106. Please send the completed form to: • Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 707 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Attention: Misty Swan For purposes of this study, Prime Farmland includes prime farmland if certain conditions are present, and includes prime farmland if irrigated, prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season,prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium, and prime farmland if irrigated and the product of soil erodibility and • climate factor does not exceed 60. Page E-612 NRCS Farmland Impact Memo November 2010 Page 4 ID FIGURE 2 : DIRECT FARMLAND IMPACTS - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Adams County ], Impacts to Farmlands - Farmland of Local Importance Longmont [1 :-• - Farmland of Statewide Importance - Farmland if Irrgated• �'�� —T—` Limits of Construction - Preferred Alternative — County Boundaries ii I. * — . City Boundaries • Land would be considered Prime Farmland if it were Frederick (al irrigated (bl Protected from flooding or not frequently BO UL L D E R c ra during the growing season lcl Drained and either protected from flooding or I not frequently flooded dunng the growing season (d)lrngated and reclaimed of excess saris and sodium (e)Irrigated and the product of l (soil erodntxlrty) x C Niwot (Ornate facts' does not exceed 60 Dacono - Fort Lupton till Gunbarrel ) -I— t , FLF— Erie _ _ WELD Lafayette I I / \ + Louisville 1 ' � --- " '1 Brighton NMI I0 , ` I 1 r __.[ . Superior I I' • . I ' ,- - -1 BROOMFIELD i ADAMS r ' '� Broomfield i 1 I I I ' ' I I Northglenn _ _ -' 'I - _ e-_ -- I - - = " I 36 . I r Thornton Commerce City h _. 1YT3 - I - 1 I.........\71 r ,�__-_f 1 r � I : 1 ° i I I _ �• - - I - - r re f I - - - r'�'0� - _ ' - _ -II 4 in o /1 Denver DENVER 2 4 North �� Mlles (r ' t I all Page E-613 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev 1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS • PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 11/11/10 ° sheep 1 or 1.Name of Project North 1-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2.Type of Project Transportation 6.County and State Lorimer County, Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES ❑ NO ❑ 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: % Acres: y, 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 447 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 447 0 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 11 • 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 6 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 16 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 1 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 21 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 75 0 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 75 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 75 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: 446.94 YES O NO ❑ 5. Reason For Selection: Best meets the project's purpose and need of meeting long-term travel needs between Denver Metro Area and rapidly growing population centers along 1-25 corridor north to Ft.Collins-Welling area by improving safety and mobility/access, replacing aging and obsolete highway infrastructure,and providing for modal alternatives and interrelationships--while minimizing environmental impacts. Signature of Person Completing this Part: I DATE • 11/11/10 NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-614 NRCS-CPA-106(Reverse) CORRIDOR -TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA • The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor-type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent-15 points 90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent-10 points 90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed(managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent-20 points 90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected-20 points Site is not protected-0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s)containing the site(before the project)as large as the average-size farming unit in the County? • (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture,Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with$1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger- 10 points Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average,down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average-9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e.,farm suppliers,equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available-5 points Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available-0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns,other storage building,fruit trees and vines,field terraces,drainage, irrigation,waterways,or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment-20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment- 19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment-0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus,the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? • Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland- 10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 point(s) Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points Page E-615 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev 1-91) ID FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Dale of Land Evaluation Request 11111/10 r Sheet 1 or 1 1.Name of Protect North 1-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHW2 Type at Project Transportation 6 County and State Weld County, Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received oy NRCS 2,.Person Completing Form fri'3. Does the corridor contain prime.unique statewide or local important farmlands 4. Acres rngaled l AveragerFarm Size (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES NO ❑ 3��1 8'3 e. i 5 3 3 5 Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction ' 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA W Ae-4 Acres: 9 8-7 kl Z % 3.R.5 Acres: 3 Z7, 93 0 % 33 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9 Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS Co L E CA- A9 /A- /Z. //L//io PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor 0 A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 385 B. Total Acres To be Converted Indirectly,Or to Receive Services 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 385 0 0 0 PART IV (To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation information A Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 3 Y' Z.5 L 7 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland Z, LI C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted , OO( D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value , `‘, PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) C,0 PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points ID 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 14 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 9 3 Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 17 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Govemment 20 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 2 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 .15 7 S 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 .@-- 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 77 0 0 0 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 77 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 77 0 0 0 1 Corridor Selected: 2 Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3 Date Of Selection 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project' 384.90 YES O No m 5. Reason For Selection Best meets the project's purpose and need of meeting long-term travel needs between Denver Metro Area and rapidly growing population centers along 1-25 corridor north to Ft.Collins-Welling area by improving safety and mobility/access, replacing aging and obsolete highway infrastructure, and providing for modal alternatives and interrelationships--while minimizing environmental impacts. Signature of Person Completing this Part 1DATF Ill 11/11/10 NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-616 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev t -91 ) 0 FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Lane Evaluation Request 11/11/10 Sheet 1 of 1 1 . Name of Project North 1-25 EIS 5. Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2. Type of Project Transportation 6. County and State Larimer County Colorado PART lI (To be completed by NRCS) 1. Date Request Received by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form 11/23/10 Boldt 3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size YES m NO O 420 (If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form). 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA beets, corn, barley, beans, alfalfa Acres: 542,000 /,0 s a Acres: 88,000 %/, 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Useo 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10 Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS Larimer County LESA Larimer County 12/14/10 Alternative Corridor For Segment PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 447 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services ilfi4 C Total Acres In Corridor 447 0 0 0 PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 441 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 6 C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted Q, 5- D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value J, 97 PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0 - 100 Points) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points ID 1 . Area in Nonurban Use 15 11 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 6 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 16 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 1 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 25 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 25 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 104 0 4 0 0 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 /00 Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 104 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 jeer el 0 7�/ 0 0 0 1 . Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: 446.94 YES ® NO ❑ 5. Reason For Selection: • Signature of Person Completing this Part: DATE NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-617 NRCS-CPA-106(Reverse) CORRIDOR-TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA • The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor-type site configuration connecting two distant points,and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways,railroads,stream improvements,and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent-15 points 90 to 20 percent-14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent-10 points 90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed(managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent-20 points 90 to 20 percent-19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected-20 points Site is not protected-0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s)containing the site(before the project)as large as the average-size farming unit in the County? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of • Agriculture,Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with$1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger-10 points Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average,down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average-9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets,i.e.,farm suppliers,equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available-5 points Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available-0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns,other storage building,fruit trees and vines,field terraces,drainage,irrigation,waterways,or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment-20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment-19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment-0 points (9) Would the project at this site,by converting farmland to nonagricultural use,reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus,the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 point(s) • Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points Page E-618 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING • FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Dale of Land Evaluation Request 11/16/10 11 Sheet 1 of 1 1 Name of Project North 1-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2 Type of Project Transportation 6 County and Slate Adams County, Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Receiv d by NRCS 2. Parson Completing Form ////7-//O 4te,g ecrel in, Fpovic c� 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irrigated Average Fern Size Ilf(If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES NO El /4./ '4.3 781 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA GuAea1- Acres: SS((g,/ Clii Z % 72. Acres: /6/9'63 3 9. 8. Name O1 Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land EVafuation Returned by NRCS CO 46-54- N /4- rt. ltq/(o PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 69 B Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly. Or To Receive Services 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 69 0 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland _ (fl?s.5 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland O C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted , 0O'r/ D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value / PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation information Criterion Relative value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) /O O PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points • 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 5 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 5 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 2 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 5 Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 0 6. Creation Of Nonlarmable Farmland 25 .O' 24 7 Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8 On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 -0- Z$ 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 10 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 37 0 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 37 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 hues) 260 37 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Dale Of Selection 4 Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project. 68.51 YES ❑ NO Q 5 Reason For Selection: Best meets the project's purpose and need of meeting long-term travel needs between Denver Metro Area and rapidly growing population centers along 1-25 corridor north to Ft.Collins-Welling area by improving safety and mobility/access, replacing aging and obsolete highway infrastructure, and providing for modal alternatives and interrelationships--while minimizing environmental impacts. • i — — Signature of Person Completing this Part: �� [DATE r� f,<.(7 11116/10 NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with mor than one Alternate Corridor Page E-619 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service • FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING Rer.1 at. FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 1.Name of Project 11/11/10 la Sheet l of 1 I North I-25 EIS 5.Federal Agency Involved FHWA/FTA 2.Type of Project Transportation 6.County and Stale Boulder/Broomfield,Colorado PART II(To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Hec ivyd b y NRCS 2.perso ovlelgtg Forrp. 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? �/ 4. Acres Irrigated Average arm Size (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of This form). YES I]Q NO 0 3 38 7 I I /gS 5. Major Crop(s) /1 / fId nn& �// ra(p % Z6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA /7Ly , n(A Acres: ( 3> O 7 Acres: , R.)/ % 2 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Use 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS C o L SS 4- iv/A- PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor 0 A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 77 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly.Or To Receive Services 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 77 0 0 0 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 73rd B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 3 C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted s 2.3 D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value Leg PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation hdtafliOon Criterion Refat e value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0.100 Points) q0 PART VI(To be completed by FederalAgency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points • 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 10 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 5 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 3 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 5 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 0 ' 7. Availablilib'Of Farm Support Services 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 10 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 5 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 43 0 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above era local site assessment) 160 43 0 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 43 0 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Dale Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: 76.79 YES 0 NO ❑ 5. Reason For Selection: Best meets the project's purpose and need of meeting long•term travel needs between Denver Metro Area and rapidly growing population centers along 1.25 corridor north to Ft.Collins-Welling area by improving safety and mobility/access, replacing aging and obsolete highway infrastructure,and providing for modal alternatives and interrelationships--while minimizing environmental impacts. Signature of Person Completing this Nan: (DATE • 11/11/10 NOTE:Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor Page E-620 united States Department of Aetricelture 4 \RCS • Natural Resources Conservation Service Denver Federal Center Building 56,Room 2604 P.Q. Box 25426 Denver,CO 80225 SUBJECT: PER-North I25 EIS April 25,2011 TO: Robert Quinlan Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Denver,CO This letter is in response to your request for the NRCS to provide mitigation or alternatives,concerning the North 1-25 EIS Project. The following is a sequential list of events that have occurred pertaining to this project. • Form(s)CPA 106 was submitted to the NRCS by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.,concerning the lnterstatc-25 Environmental Impact Statement Project.(The project is a corridor project covering multiple counties) • Misty Swan(in communication via email)stated that"the methodology used previously for farmland impact analysis for this project extracted the census urban area boundary and existing highway right of way to establish areas of farmland to be assessed for project impacts." • NRCS reviewed the GIS shape files submitted by Misty Swan and Andy Priest. NRCS concluded that a greater part of the acreage is in urban land,highway right of way,or previously paved areas. NRCS recommended that these non- agricultural areas be excluded from the project area. It is not NRCS responsibility to complete this task. • Using the original GIS spatial layers you provided,the NRCS returned the CPA 106 form(s)to Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.within the 45 day allotted time frame,with our Land Evaluation and Site Assessment scores in place. These scores stand.based on the information provided. • NRCS is now being requested by you to provide mitigation or alternatives for the project. As defined in 7 CFR 658 of the Federal Register,the NRCS does not provide site alternatives for an impact project. Federally funded projects must adhere to part 658,pursuant to section 1541(a)of the Farmland Protection Policy Act 7 U.S.C.4202(a). As • required by section 1541(b)of the Act,7 L'.S.C.4202(h),Federal agencies are(a)to use the criteria to identify and take into account the adverse effects of their programs on the preservation of farmland,(b)to consider alternative actions,as appropriate,that could lessen the adverse effects,and(c)to ensure that their programs,to the extent practicable,are compatible with State and units of local government and private programs and policies to protect farmland. NRCS at this time has noted that the site is suitable for protection under these criteria,and alternative sites could potentially be given a lower score,if applicable. Once a Federal agency has performed an analysis under the FPPA for the conversion of a site,that agency's determination with regard to additional assistance or actions on the same site do not require additional redundant FPPA analysis. Observing that there are no reasonable alternatives for expansion to a major corridor,such as Interstate 25,no further sites should be investigated or rated at this time, It is possible that the requesting Federal Agency(FHA)can minimize specific impacts by converting non-prime farmland elsewhere in the county to offset any conversion. Please note,there is potential the total point score calculated is inaccurate,since non-farmland(urban,highway,parking lots)areas were included in the project map we were provided. The NRCS has the responsibility to complete Part II,Part IV,and Part V of form CPA-106.The requesting Federal Agency(or designee)has the responsibility to complete Part 1,Part Ill,Part VI,and Part VII These sections,of form CPA-106,should be completed in order. Respectfully Submitted, William Shoup,Assistant State Soil Scientist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Denver,Colorado cc: Steve Park,NRCS State Soil Scientist Boyd Byelich,NRCS District Conservationist Todd Boldt,NRCS District Conservationist Misty Swan,Jacobs Engineering Inc Cindy Einspahr,NRCS District Conservationist Jennifer Wolchansky,Jacobs Engineering Inc. • Helping People Help the Land An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page E-621 Q U Depcnnert Colorado Division 12300 W. Dakota Ave., Ste. 180 • Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Federal Highway Admirdd nano August 4, 2011 720-963-3000 720-963-3001 Susan Linner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services P.O. Box 25486, DFC, (MS 65412) Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 Subject: North I-25 Programmatic Biological Assessment Dear Ms. Linner: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is requesting formal consultation to address the potential effects to federally listed species by the Preferred Alternative presented in the North 1-25 Final EIS. The transportation improvements are needed to improve mobility, provide multimodal opportunities, and address aging infrastructure in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer and Weld • counties, Colorado. Please accept the attached Programmatic Biological Assessment(PBA) which describes in more detail the project and the expected effects to listed species. This PBA is meant to address listed species found in the North I-25 EIS Project study area. Because of the length of time it will take to implement the whole Preferred Alternative, the Programmatic Agreement defines the process for future consultations as they are needed. It is expected that the Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapushudsoniuspreblel). Additionally, it is expected that the Project may affect, but would not be likely to adversely affect either the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana coloradensis) or the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Sprianthes diluvialis). Species affected by depletions to the South Platte River are also addressed. FHWA is requesting that the USFWS review the enclosed PBA and prepare a Biological Opinion to address the determined effects and the amount of take of federally listed species and their habitat. These actions will ensure that FHWA and CDOT comply with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. If you have additional questions, or need additional information, please contact Monica Pavlik at 720- 963-3003 or Carol Parr, CDOT Region 4 Environmental, at 970-350-2170. • Page E-622 2 • Sincerely, John M. Cater Division Administrator Cc: Jeff Peterson, CDOT EPB Carol Parr, CDOT Environment Region 4 Enclosure • • Page E-623 STATE OF COLORADO • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region Four Environmental,Planning Section '• O7' 1420 2n°Street Greeley,CO 80631 - -. (970)350-2170 Fax(970)350-2203 a U[PAFTNCYT OF TR\NSPORLU IONON November 5, 2010 Mr. Edward C.Nichols State Historic Preservation Officer History Colorado/Colorado Historical Society 1560 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 SUBJECT: Additional Determinations of Eligibility,North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), CDOT Project Number IM 0253-179,Adams,Boulder,Larimer and Weld Counties, (CHS#42346) Dear Mr.Nichols: This letter constitutes a request for comment on Determinations of Eligibility for the project referenced above. CDOT submitted to your office the Historic Resources Survey Report as a part of the North Interstate(I-25)Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)in July 2007. The properties surveyed for that report were located within the Area of Potential Effects(APE)for Package A and Package B. In October 2007,your office subsequently reviewed the survey forms associated with the report and provided • determinations of eligibility. Resulting from design modifications,this office submitted another group of surveys in August 2008. The project design team has selected a Preferred Alternative for this project. The Preferred Alternative is currently under analysis within the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS). Your office will receive an FEIS for review upon completion of the document. Further design for the Preferred Alternative resulted in areas where double tracking and maintenance roads maybe needed for potential commuter rail elements. The highway elements also incorporated design changes that extended the east/west distances of the tapers from some of the planned interchanges along 1-25. Because of these design changes, Gail Keeley of Hermsen Consultants conducted 33 new surveys and five re-evaluations of additional properties within the APE from August to September 2010. The following two tables list those additional surveys and re-evaluations. The first table lists those surveys prepared for the commuter rail element of the Preferred Alternative and the second one lists those for the highway elements. This office will submit effects determinations for these sites within the FEIS later. Please refer to the accompanying forms for further information on each site. Survey Results Table I.--Additional Surveys Prepared for Commuter Rail OAHP Site Address Eligibility Assessment Number larimer County 5LR.12548 3725 W 57m St., Loveland Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12549 5209 Lariat Dr., Loveland Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. • Page E-624 Mr.Nichols November 5,2010 • Page 2 5LR.12550 5101 Ranch Acres Dr., Loveland Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12551 5005 Ranch Acres Dr., Loveland Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12552 205-207 S. In St, Berthoud Determined Eligible to the NRHP, 2010. Boulder County 5BL.11214 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1625 Lamplighter Dr., Longmont 2010. 5BL.11215 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1619 Lamplighter Dr., Longmont 2010. 5BL.11216 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1525 Liberty Ct., Longmont 2010. 58L.11217 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1519 Liberty Ct., Longmont 2010. 5BL.11218 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1513 Liberty Ct., Longmont 2010. 5BL.11219 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1507 Liberty Ct, Longmont 2010. 5BL.11220 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1501 Liberty Ct., Longmont 2010. 5BL.11221 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, • 120 gth Ave, Longmont 2010. 5BL.9163 Determined Field Eligible to the NRHP, 846 Atwood, Longmont (re-evaluation) 2003. 58L.11222 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 130 3"'Ave., Longmont 2010. 5BL.11223 225 Baker St., Longmont Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5BL.11224 211-255 E. Rogers Rd., Longmont Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5BL.11225 12594 Highway 119, Longmont Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. Weld County 5WL.6564 12877 CR 18, Longmont Determined Eligible to the NRHP, 2010. Table II.—Additional Surveys Prepared for Highway Improvements OAHP Site Address Eligiblity Assessment Number Larimer County 5LR.12553 4027 Cleveland Ave, Wellington Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12554 4021 Cleveland Ave, Wellington Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12555 4228 E. Mulberry St, Ft. Collins Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010, 5LR.11393 Rudolph Farm 1028-1100 SE Frontage Determined not eligible to the NRHP, • Rd..re-evaluation) 2006. 5LR.12556 3716 E. Prospect Rd. Determined not eligible to the NRHP, Page E-625 Mr.Nichols November 5,2010 Page 3 • 2010. 5LR.12557 3604 E. Prospect Rd. Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12558 3540 E. Prospect Rd. Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12559 3532 E. Prospect Rd. Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12561 4401 E. Prospect Rd. Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.995.6 Lake Canal Ditch (re-evaluation) Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 1983. 5LR.12562 4409 E. Prospect Rd. Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12552 Cline Cottage, County Road 38 (re- Re-evaluated as not eligible to the evaluation) NRHP,2010. 5LR.11210 4856 E. Highway 34(re-evaluation) Determined Officially Eligible to the NRHP, 2006. 5LR.12563 7221 E. Highway 34 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12564 6330 E. CR 18 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010 5LR.12565 6333 E. CR 18 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12566 6231 E. CR 18 Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010. 5LR.12567 6127 E. CR 16, Loveland Determined not eligible to the NRHP, • 2010. Adams County 5AM.2770 441 E. 136`"Ave., Thornton Determined not eligible to the NRHP, 2010 Out of the 38 sites,CDOT has determined that four resources(5LR.12552,5BL.9163, 5WL.6564,and 5LR.11210)are eligible to the NRHP. We request your concurrence with the Determinations of Eligibility outlined herein. Your response is necessary for the Federal Highway Administration's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(as amended)and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations. This office has transmitted copies of this correspondence and site forms to those Certified Local Governments who have previously expressed an interest in participating in the review process. If you have questions or require additional information in order to complete your review,please contact CDOT Region 4 Senior Historian Robert Autobee at(970)350-2204. Ve ,t ly,yours i tip;, Robert Autobee, Senior Historian CDOT-Region 4, Environmental/Planning Enclosures cc: Monica Pavlik. FH WA/Carol Parr,COOT-Region 4/Thor Gjelsteen,FHU • Page E-626 bK- , rt _ • v 1. • 4,a . El HISTORY?A „ _ / November 29, 2010 Bob Autobee Colorado Department of Transportation Region Four Environmental/Planning Section 1420 2^d Street Greeley,CO 80631 Re: Additional Determinations of Eligibility,North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement, CDOT Project Number IM 0253-179,Adams, Boulder, Latimer, and Weld Counties. (CHS #42346) Dear Mt. Autobee; Thank you for your correspondence dated November 5,2010 and received by our office on November 8, 2010 regarding the consultation of the above-mentioned project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(Section 106). We have additional questions for the resources listed below. • • 5LR.995.6 The site form makes the recommendation that the entire linear resource is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and that the segment is"not eligible." Since the original recording of this segment,our offices have agreed to evaluate segments in terms of supporting or not supporting of the overall eligibility of the entire linear resource. It is not clear if the form is making the recommendation that the entire linear resource is not eligible or if the segment is non-supporting of an eligible linear resource. Also, according to our files,segment 5LR.995.6 If unidentified archaeological resources are discovered during construction,work must be interrupted until the resources have been evaluated in terms of the National Register criteria, 36 CRF 60.4,in consultation with this office. We request being involved in the consultation process with the local government,which as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.3 is required to be notified of the undertaking, and with other consulting patties. Additional information provided by the local government or consulting parties might cause our office to re-evaluate our eligibility and potential effect findings. Please note that our compliance letter does not end the 30-day review period provided to other consulting parties. If we may be of further assistance,please contact Amy Pallante,our Section 106 Compliance Manager,at(303) 866-4678. Sincerely, ti• � r1 - T/_ Edward C. Nichols State Historic Preservation Officer , iii luLVI(,A Ili, I IIti IIi 1<I( .\L `.r.,1:I� 1`. wit-.wit-. CFNTFR PI.A7A 1560 RRnA AWAY SII ITF 400 IIFNVFR C(1101711no 20707 ummlr lrictnpPWA# -9Zri • STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CDOT-Reglon 4 Em ronmentaWlanNng 14202"Street Greeley.Colorado 90631 (970)350-2204 aRMniMTa rano. December 9,2010 Mr.Edward C.Nichols State Historic Preservation Officer History Colorado/Colorado Historical Society 1560 Broadway,Suite 400 Denver,CO 80203 SUBJECT: Additional Information,North 1-25 Environmental Impact Statement,CDOT Project No. IM 0253479,Adams,Boulder, Larimer and Weld Counties(CHS#42346) Dear Mr.Nichols: Thank you for your letter of November 29,2010 regarding the project above. The following is CDOT- • Region 4's response to your request for additional information on a 1,400-foot long segment of the Lake Canal(5LR.995.6). ENeibiity Determination 51.8.995.6.1,400-foot long setmtent of the Lake Canal: Your correspondence referred to a change in evaluation of linear resource segments since the initial recordation of the entire Lake Canal by Rebecca Herbst of CDOT in 1983. Based on the information provided by Gail Keeley of Harmsen Consultants in September 2010,the ditch and segment,has lost their original historic integrity,setting and feeling. CDOT concurs with the initial 1983 determination that the entire Lake Canal is not eligible to the National Regis of Historic Places(NRHP).Additionally,segment 5LR.995.6 does not support the potential eligibility of the overall resource. We request your concurrence with our determination of eligibility. Your response is necessary for the Federal Highway Administration's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. If you require additional information, please contact me at(970)350-2204. Very truly yours, i Robert Autobee,CDOT- .4 Hi 'an • Environmental/Planning Branch Enc.hoc: Carol Parr,CDOT-Region 4 Page E-628 • From: Autobee, Robert fmailto:Robert.Autobee@dot.state.co.usl Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:27 AM To: Parr, Carol; Thor.Gjelsteen Subject: Determination of Eligibility North I-25 EIS(CHS#42346) Carol and Thor: Please use the following as the SHPO's concurrence on the determinations of eligibility for the recent round of properties for the North I-25 EIS. Bob Autobee Robert Autobee CDOT-Region 4 Senior Historian 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 (T): (970) 350-2204/(F): (970) 350-2203 From: Pallante, Amy fmailto:Amv.Pallante(aachs.state.co.usl Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 7:59 AM • To: Autobee, Robert Subject: RE: Determination of Eligibility North I-25 EIS (CHS#42346) Happy New Year, Hello Bob, We concur with the recommended findings of National Register eligibility for the surveyed properties presented in your November 5, 2010. We had additional questions in regards to resource 5LR.995 from your November 5, 2010 letter which were answered in your December 9, 2010 letter. Thank you, Amy Amy Pallante Section 106 Compliance Manager Colorado State Historic Preservation Office Colorado Historical Society 1560 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303-866-4678 amy.pallante@chs.state.co.us • Page E-629 • From: Autobee, Robert jmailto:Robert.AutobeeCadot.state.co.usl Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 1:42 PM To: Pallante, Amy Subject: Determination of Eligibility North I-25 EIS (CHS#42346) Amy: I just received the letter of concurrence(dated December 20,2010)for the eligibility of the Lake Canal Ditch (5LR.995). This was a follow-up to the determination letter of November 29,2010. I could not find in either letter a mention of concurrence on the eligibility of the other properties submitted for review. Can we say that your office concurs with our findings? Thank you, Bob Autobee Robert Autobee CDOT-Region 4 Historian 1420 2nd Street Greeley, CO 80631 (T): (970)350-2204/(F):(970)350-2203 • • Page E-630 NORTH 1-25 EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. St. Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation MEETING DATE: March 30, 2011 LOCATION: St. Vrain State Park CO State Parks: Kathy Seiple, Jim Trotter ATTENDEES: CDOT: Carol Parr, Patrick Hickey Jacobs: Gina McAfee, Diane Yates PREPARER: JACOBS Attendees, Bob Quinlan, Thor Gjelsteen, Monica Pavlik, Jacobs File COPIES: • MEETING SUMMARY 1. Carol gave an introduction to project status. The FEIS is projected to be released for review in July. The ROD will be only for the first phase. 2. Diane said the project will impact approximately 7.3 acres of high and moderate wetlands. Not much of this is within this watershed, but it makes sense to concentrate impacts in one or two mitigation sites, because: ► State Parks and CDOT have good working relationship. ► State Parks knows what is expected. ► There is a greater chance of wetland success. 3. CDOT is looking at other options as well: ► Westminster ► Fort Collins ► CDOW 4. Carol described the MOA that would be needed. 5. CSP worked with CDOT (Jim Eussen) a couple of years ago for wetland mitigation. CDOT provided plans. CSP and WRV did the construction. This was a remedial action for mitigation. • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-631 ., NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. St. Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation March 30, 2011 2 of 2 6. There was an MOA done 15 years ago between CDOT and CSP for wetland and riparian mitigation. CDOT did the annual monitoring for work done. 7. CSP (at St. Vrain State Park) is planning $4 million in improvements. Wetland mitigation could be along an oxbow north of Blue Heron Reservoir or down by the Headquarters building. CSP has senior water rights off of a ditch. They currently only use about 60 percent of their water. The water table is about four to six feet. 8. Money for this could be possibly from Headquarters, or maybe this could be a Region 4 maintenance project. Trying to get this done in advance of the wetland impact is a good goal. Planting could be done by several different volunteer groups. 9. CSP has a planting palette they can give us. A weed control specification would be useful. 10. Carol will look for the old MOA. 11. Kathy will check to see if the Conceptual Master Plan is available. This will probably be • online. 12. Action is: ► Diane to proceed with developing the CMP for the site along SH 119. Carol also directed Diane to develop back up CMPs for the other sites. ► Jacobs/CDOT will provide to CSP an outline of what would be in an MOA. ► Carol will investigate what options there might be for short-term funding possibilities (including with HQ or with Region 4 budgets). Since there will be contractors out on site next fiscal year (July 2012), that would be an ideal time. ► Diane will send out the requirements from the Corps to the attendees ItTransportation\071609.400\_WV%v811_NI25 T011\manage\mtgs\minutes\St.Vrain_30March2011\st.vrain wetland mtg_0330111gj.doc • Page E-632 L h NORTH I25 • w • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation, transportation. St. Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation MEETING DATE: April 21, 2011 LOCATION: St. Vrain State Park (SVSP) ATTENDEES: CO State Parks: Kathy Seiple, Jim Trotter Jacobs: Diane Yates PREPARER: JACOBS Attendees, Carol Parr, Gina McAfee, Bob Quinlan, Thor Gjelsteen, COPIES: Monica Pavlik, Jacobs File MEETING SUMMARY • Purpose of Meeting: To collect information on SVSP's ideas for wetland mitigation. Meeting Highlights 1. Diane reviewed the 12 components to be described in the concept level mitigation plan to accompany the 404 permit application. A copy of this list is attached to these minutes. 2. It is CDOT's objective to provide 7.4 acres of compensatory wetland mitigation by establishing new wetlands or a combination of new wetland areas with riparian buffer. The wetland replacement ratio is 1 :1 for new wetland area and 4:1 for new riparian buffer area. 3. Kathy and Jim prefer the combination of wetland areas with riparian buffer to meet SVSP's goals to "enhance and diversify the existing plant, animal and fish ecosystems within the park" (St. Vrain State Park Draft Master Plan, January 2004). 4. Diane explained CDOT would like to provide all of North 1-25 Project's mitigation at St. Vrain State Park, if possible. The 7.4 acres represent the total area of on-site wetland mitigation requested from the Corps. 5. Jim and Kathy described their ideas for wetland establishment, restoration and/or enhancement for two sites: the upland area west of SVSP's park headquarters (the WPH Site); and the Oxbow restoration site north of the Blue Heron Reservoir (the Oxbow Site). A copy of the Vrain State Park Draft Master plan (2004) was provided for Diane's use to copy and return to Kathy. • Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration S Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-633 NORTH I-2D • EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation St. Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation April21, 2011 2 of 4 West of Park Headquarters (WPH) Site • The WPH Site wetland mitigation project would convert flat agricultural land to a wetland / riparian complex typical to pre-settlement conditions of the St Vrain River floodplain. The restoration objective would be to establish new wetlands adjacent to the existing wetlands along Idaho Creek. • The WPH site may not be large enough to provide 7.4 acres of wetland mitigation. • Wetland hydrology would be established by creating a new creek channel connected with the existing Idaho Creek channel. The new channel would be 6-8 feet wide. Wetland hydrology would be established in the new channel and within 6 feet along both sides of channel. The total width of wetland along the new channel would be 12 to 14 feet. The new channel length would depend on existing site topography and the channel gradient of Idaho Creek. • Idaho Creek enters the WPH Site from the south, travels east and north in a • meandering pattern, and exits the north side of the WPH Site to flow north and connect with Last Chance Ditch and ultimately the St. Vrain River. • Currently SVSP owns senior water rights from Idaho Creek and uses approximately 60% of this water allocation to flow through the wetland playas and riparian areas in SVSP. The new wetland would draw upon the unused portion of SVSP's water allocation spring, summer and fall irrigation seasons. A topographic survey of the WPH Site would be needed to design the new channel and adjacent wetlands. • Ground water would contribute to the WPH Site wetland hydrology if the new channel was excavated to groundwater elevation. Jim estimates groundwater to be 4 to 6 feet below existing ground surface. In 2006, fifteen ground water wells were installed around the Blue Heron Reservoir (immediately north of the WPH Site), including 2 wells on the WPH Site. The wells were installed to identify any breaks in the reservoir liner. Data from these wells will be used to verify ground water elevations on the WPH Site. • Jim Trotter can provide the SVSP plant lists for native trees, shrubs and grasses, including upland and wetland seed mixes. Arkansas Valley Seed (a local seed distribution company) has SVSP's seed mixes in stock. • Jim Trotter expects the WPH Site to have 6 to 8 inches of loam on top of undisturbed gravel and sand deposits typical to Front Range river floodplains. Excavated material could be used to create berms to visually screen and buffer adjacent highway and • JA_Transportation 071609.400\_VJVXV811_N125 TO11\manage\mtgs\minutes\St.Vrain_30March2011\st vrain wetland mtg_0421111_FINAL.doc Page E-634 NORTH 1-25 • EIS MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. St. Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation April21, 2011 3 of 4 commercial land uses. Also, berms landscaped with native trees and shrubs would improve SVSP's image from the highway. • The WPH Site wetland mitigation project would greatly enhance existing wetland functions for the WPH Site. New wetland areas with riparian buffer would provide wildlife habitat, flood abatement, water quality improvement and possibly T & E species habitat. Native shrubs and trees, especially cottonwood would provide habitat for raptors, water fowl and other birds and mammals. The Oxbow Site: • The Oxbow Site wetland mitigation project would restore wetlands and riparian habitat to existing agricultural lands adjacent to the St. Vrain River. Jim Trotter estimated that approximately 6 acres would be available for restoration on this site. • A small restoration project was installed on the Oxbow Site in 2006. An oxbow shaped depression was excavated to ground water level and planted with native • riparian trees and shrubs and seeded with bulrushes. The area of this wetland and riparian restoration could be expanded to provide mitigation credit for the North I-25 Project. • There is potential to create wetland hydrology from the un-used water allocation that would not be used at the WPH site. • A pump house and service road will be installed this summer to provide water from St Vrain River to the Blue Heron Reservoir. Otherwise the agricultural lands will be managed as natural open space. No trails are planned for this area. • Trees and shrubs would be irrigated by SVSP and volunteer staff. A temporary irrigation system could be considered as an alternative to hand watering and would be a part of the project's adaptive management plan. • The Oxbow Site wetland mitigation project would enhance the site's functional value by providing wildlife habitat, flood abatement, water quality improvement, bank stabilization and possibly T & E species habitat. Native shrubs and trees, especially cottonwood, would provide habitat for raptors, water fowl and other birds and mammals. There is the potential of adding roosting platforms for hawk, ospreys and other raptors. The prairie dog colony with in the Oxbow Site would be accommodated and possibly enhanced. Educational functions of the Oxbow site will be enhanced. The site is next to a future SVSP interpretive center. • BLTransportation\071609.400\_WVXV811_NI25 TO11\manage\mtgs\minutes\St.Vrain_30March2011\st vrain wetland mtg_0421111_FINAL.doc Page E-635 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. St Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation April21, 2011 4 of 4 6. SVSP project review process will take approximately 3 weeks once the mitigation plan is developed to SVSP and CDOT staff satisfaction. The review will include the SVSP engineer and district parks supervisor. 7. The memorandum of agreement (MOA) will follow a similar review process and may require more review time than the plan. 8. Diane reviewed a draft schedule and goal to submit the mitigation plan with the 404 permit application by July 1. With this deadline in mind, the next step would be to develop the mitigation plan in April and May, and conduct the plan and MOA reviews in June. Action Items: • CDOT to provide copy of previous MOA with SVSP to Kathy. • Kathy Seiple to provide GIS files of master plans maps, plant palette, groundwater well data and water rights documentation. • • Diane Yates to provide example of monitoring plan to SVSP for their reference. • Diane Yates to investigate if CDOT could provide site survey, soil borings and analysis. • Bob Quinlan to work with Carol Parr to develop a draft MOA for SVSP review. • Bob Quinlan to revise 404 permit schedule to include SVST Park review process. • Diane to copy the draft master plan report, distribute it to CDOT and FEIS project managers, and return original to Kathy Seiple. Components of a Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan 1. Obiectives: What is the resource type and amount provided? 2. Site Selection Factors: What are the factors considered during site selection? 3. Site Protection Instrument: What are the management plans on government property? 4. Baseline Information: What are the ecological practices of proposed mitigation site? 5. Work Plan: Provide project work descriptions and construction specifications. 6. Maintenance Plan: Provide a description and schedule of tasks. 7. Performance Standards: What are the standards by which the project can be assessed for success? 8. Monitoring Requirements: Use USAGE standards for a typical 10 page annual report. 9. Financial Assurances: Describe the source of funds and how they will suffice for project construction and wetland establishment. 10. Credit Determination: What is the number of credits provided and the rationale? 11. Lone-term Management Plan: Describe management procedures after performance standards are met. 12. Adaptive Management Plan: What is the strategy to address unforeseen site conditions and who is responsible? • 3:LTransportation\071609.400LNNXV811_N125 TO11\manage\mtgs\minutes\St.Vrain_30March2011\st vrain wetland mtg_0421111_FINAL.doc Page E-636 NORTH 1-25 • • EIS MEETING MINUTES-FINAL information. cooperation transportation. St. Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation Plan Review MEETING DATE: June 14, 2011 LOCATION: St. Vrain State Park (SVSP) St. Vrain State Park: Kathy Seiple, Jim Trotter, Paul Barker ATTENDEES: CDOT: Carol Parr, Rebecca Pierce Jacobs: Gina McAfee, Diane Yates PREPARER: JACOBS COPIES: Attendees, Bob Quinlan, Thor Gjelsteen, Monica Pavlik, Jacobs File MEETING SUMMARY 1. Carol asked about the wetland impact. The quantities are: • 15.86 Jurisdictional—wetland` 2.87 Open—waters 18.73 Are the total wetlands and other jurisdictional water impacts *Correction: The total area of jurisdictional wetland impact is 15.31 acres. Carol would like to have as many wetlands created on site as possible. 2. Paul Barker is one of the project engineers who know a lot about this park. Bahman Hatami is the Park's statewide water manager and the one who could answer water rights questions. 3. Carol described the MOA. CDOT would provide information on timing of the funding (prior to the next growing season) and the funding itself. CDOT's fiscal year starts July 1. State Parks could either do the construction in-house or with a contractor. The plantings could be done by volunteers. CDOT will provide a final design and specifications (construction documents), wetland delineation and functional assessment, water augmentation plan (if needed), site survey, grading plan, and post-construction monitoring reports per USACE requirements. 4. Bahman would have to review this potential plan to determine if there are water right issues. 5. If we are excavating down to groundwater, the project may not need water rights if the new wetlands directly replace the impacted wetlands without affecting other water right owners. 6. What are advantages and disadvantages of either CDOT or State Parks contracting for • work? Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration /Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-637 NORTH 1-25 EIS • MEETING MINUTES information. cooperation. transportation. St. Vrain State Park: Wetland Mitigation Plan Review June 14, 2011 2 of 2 7. Water right issues are: • Can the Park's shares in Rural Ditch water be used for this plan? • Replacing impacted wetlands from other drainages (like the Cache la Poudre) at SVSP. Becky said CDOT normally would not ask for the State Engineer's input on something like that. 8. Jacobs needs to determine the water budget for this. We should consider the use of the Blaney-Criddle method. We should also coordinate with Bahman Hatami. 9. The St. Vrain River Terrace site was seeded with native plants in 2007, and without irrigation, the native grasses were not established. A diversion structure will be built in 2011 with a pump and access road to be converted to the Colorado Front Range trail in the future. The trail will not be paved. 10. One issue is disposal of the excavated soils. 11. On the Idaho Creek site, can we excavate to groundwater to form a larger site—west of the existing wetland? We might be able to get as much as five acres if we include • various spots of upland area in addition to the large wetland area on the plan. This would need to be combined with delineating the existing wetlands. 12. On the St. Vrain site, wetlands can be added within the oxbow. 13. We should meet next week with Bahman Hatami, but not Margaret or Sarah. For this meeting, we can provide information on: • Where the North 1-25 project impacts are. (Becky provided her maps for Paul to give to Bahman.) • The basic concepts of excavating to groundwater. • The approximate water budget. Action Items: • Cancel June 22 meeting with Section 404 Permit agencies. (Note: Meeting has been cancelled.) • Schedule meeting with Bahman Hatami and all who attended today's meeting. (Note: Meeting scheduled for June 21 at 10:00 a.m. at the St. Vrain State Park.) • Confirm July 12 meeting with permit agencies. • Prepare estimate of project water budget. ATTACHMENTS: p'.\_Transportation\0]16094001 WVXV611 N125 TOl limanageMtgslpandoutNl25_wetland mitigation plan review mlg 061011 6endouts;Al) • Meeting agenda • Plans and descriptions for the St.Vrain River Terrace site and Idaho Creek site Federal Highway Administration S Federal Transit Administration /Colorado Department of Transportation Page E-638 NORTH 1-25 • AGENDA EIS information. cooperation. transportation NORTH I-25 EIS/ WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW MEETING ST VRAIN STATE PARK June 14, 2011; 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM St. Vrain State Park 3525 State Hwy 119, Firestone, CO 80504 303-485-0186 Purpose of meeting: ➢ Review concept site plans with existing site conditions. ➢ Listen to CDOT and SVSP staff ideas and comments. • 1. Introductions 2. Wetland Mitigation Objectives 3. Idaho Creek Site: Wetland and Riparian Habitat Restoration 4. St. Vrain River Terrace Site: Riparian Habitat Restoration 5. Memorandum of Agreement 6. Site Visit to Compare Existing Conditions with Concept Plans 7. Next Steps Invitations sent to: St Vrain State Park: Kathy Sieple, Jim Trotter and Paul Barker CDOT: Carol Parr, Long Nguyen, Patrick Hickey, and Rebecca Pierce Jacobs: Gina McAfee, Diane Yates, and Bob Quinlan • Page E-639 O v. (O W C C aa> 0 cc 0 3 0Y coco Ca > Z IP i co 0 a = m X .N. - c r an d °' y O N > L N N L.0 N C co .X �' N >. `- N CD C) N N E a a a) L E@ c _E C O 0 `O a) m 0 @ L �' O O 'O x o c c 0) a) (a N 3 CO a) ns 3 ' 0o yo $ 0 m'— CC a) 0 -0 � A m C -0 a� N a o :? Y a 3 w > o o �... U U 0 mw @ a a) co c o c m a o o w d -0 ds CCYONa) @ coNp vi.c N .0.. C@ N N@ C -0 C_ 0 CO N w N .� N N @ a L +., a co OO c T 0 3 3 C C L N ci)E . @ N d@ J E c (n 0 y)co O N J 0 U Y m@ U -- I' t L N coca) .a0 a) o) ,3 � •° NE@ � 30 LE 0 -- o w' w3 o .H0 a 3 L 3 TI) 0 o c d U 0 0N. a •• 0 CO Ca - o e o 0 0 3 CO 0 C L "O co L O c) a N &i n c@ L N N- R .a c (a O C O o L co @ ay L a L 'o (y L a) c L o 3 -o T@ "o 0 O = @ a o 0 0 a) "O CO 3 U CD C C V w L@ 'a N C U O) C a c ... >, Cu) O 17 a N N a C 0 O C C O) CO CO 3 COfl r a) @ N -O O T.) C -a -c @ _o w @ 0 0 L` -a y c a) > C N U 'a ay N a N a) c O N a C� m N CO m C -0 C 3 Y 2 0 0@ m ' 3 y C c ,- 0 Q as m •m � L � � aYi m � @ m o m-@O CD N j N .J @ m (6 C 2 y C :O C 9 N 3 C C e o ct—. c O U 3 c o 'E -o .O m3 a; 4Q m3 Ccym3o 03 (° mo 2 a L 'a Co@ e r o 3 c a 0 y o E __ D a N o o • co aU Y co U II E N @ a N N CD C@ E L coC @ L L 3 a O x r O 0 O 4 C N m (a0 OCOCD L • co LE � o . mom CXyDE a y c w O c 4-0 _ Y 0 3 0 o nu. o 0 0 $ 0 n@ ry c '� Cow@ o0c 0Eo C � oma OGLE Q a) @ @ @ o .0 D .c co .o -C 0 a) co N o >3-0 -O C 0 > m a t0 3 y@ o Tit N C) OC U N = 0@ wO O N E N o 'o 0 w0 w r- .a ° N co y0 w 0 o@ N CO r„) @ _ C@ F- 3 CD ON -6 U O @ a) �a) 2 -O -a m 3 C p V a H 0 0 o a) O N s C CD U C N .0 -o 4 E o awe •3Y @ ° @ Y@ a 0 0 •w0� M 3 E -O N ° m co c o a O cm.,, @E a E 3 0 o w i0 ' .@. '@ 1;3 `a) a) N L @ 4- a (a a) -' N U �0 — O T o m , _ _ E > E O �0 m -7) o NacNc3Oa woo aac) 3 3 aacN) oEo N > £ C y O Y C C O 0 C E O N "O c '() N .@. C N T @ /may o m@ -- @I@ `@ NE co c ≥ n .c `-�° @ o .c ._ 3 '� o N in E E -0 U (a (LA N N C -0 O Lc ® U 0 .≥ l0 a j o , > a) O O -0 o - 0 c _ o 0 o C ≤ 0 a O 'c a 0 2 aa) .0L aw +a °° w c m 0 0 c .- co � E c 0a o m V) C m o - -0 -0 3 C 0 0@ Na @o � 0 E -O N (0i -C) 3 *a \ @ U O — C 0 O C 3@ a7 co 0 '6E ° @@ (a C -0 3 C 0 > L 3 @ C@ .N O C L N 0 o@@ @ c 0) 0 CC.) -oat Y "O 0 O coo- U a) O n w 3 — "@O o)) C 3 L C L N C > > o N O L n N 0 "C 3 ` (a t- al Y a) — a@@ U@ d@ O - @ Y 0 C L W 3 a) -cm OcYYEO 0No 3mo .@oN 00rn aYi 'n � a It Daa L 0 U o O -O Y 0 0 t 0 _@ .0. L.. @ O)c L E ~ o c 0 o O y 0 0 0 .0000 _0 3 CO (tit- °U @ E 0@@ tN V Y O 0 L C 0 _ L -0 3 _ 3 c no 3 Co > ya r co n@ 3 � t N 2 2 N N UO 'y C c c C N C n C N 3 w -0 i s '@O C -O • m N o — "O — _ L L c > @ N O — a) — @ c a N CO 'u Loy y@oncn ' y0 oyE ALE 000 0 .) OE _ • LE O L 0 U L O O � .: FU3 � 2cF OF in33 C72 F- � o - F N I- 3m� o ai Q ,x ox i i0 ,20 ,„P o � �W R g & o O1 m ° CO o P P M 3, o v a d P Z x .'.'. . %P ( z N ''CI: P .-4 Z C 2 W 2 x K x ,.. ,.Y O co co Z , P N • I a . . I i co I z I LLI I N .n .° Iu, • N Pcn co' a N GC —�• r O tix\ ��'R R H y H ( co x P d�tln � �� vm• X I I W P no qp< •P mom^ swR GC U cn m e { C6 * '• I ro I I I 'P ctiP `3'98 Z Ora Q 'cod— �. X F Z eM,,, k a al o " , �, o C C hC Q �, o in -i CI0 ti Z O / in 0 —Q 7 O � K in er,.g 9- - �Q ad r' i� M ! -.. cx : I I I widv,O a�M d'H J¢ V e U co ¢z ox zoo i x 2 F F ro x ¢ �`1 P : x:m• .fix IM Ux Zo ti . .P' ..'a.....•. ...... .. .' —Z W x 066- 2W �x ' cn co x F a y �� P 2 ZPb..\\. ,� om � xP O�0 m ti Orr Irrx NW �z0 ZD ' b S O¢F-JQ¢ �� ,\ ,,, x� v `N' ZSWa03Cl-p N.. / ( � O FF N CD a C 0 C Cu N C N 3 C ) C • X O a) Q N °. ° c a) C Cu E 0 O Co _J U C Y o y ' d L a) a) -O ,� @ U 7 a) @ d N O@ 7 O .Co N8 t-o O E U aota) > o O@ 0 Cu T O O C a O 17) p 42@ ,� °_ O- '� a) a a) 0 U - a O U N 0 E C L O y — _Co @ @ a45 2 y X co OY — Ly 0-I— w > O) @ w .,_51:3a) N -O 3 N L YO N 4O a a—) H >w -' Co CO N a) @ O `O a) L Co O@ O a co 135 2. °? E H @ t c @ ,� O ≥ _ d to a) a L o "O 0 7 :FO2 a) a) Q' C uJ a) a N C _O7 U a) a N 2 L_ -O Cu C O Co T a O 4' O o E — L 'c m <°-V Co O O 3 L Y C a) fn 0 -' (0 "0 7 " Q C Z' a) -o a) @ 0 N a ° a N C C) a co a„(13 E@ 1] C O @ ri CO CO 1] N ° y Tom_ ` Cu E ≥ @ a) C C E Y d T N o O )0 a) Cu a) d c c o @ ' a) ' 3 L E w $3 w a c4 d a) a) m L... w N a y ° ..- o o ? Y or o L@ ° o o ° c ° O C E C U E Cu@ o C 3 t > ° C a) Y• @ c. a >0 "O O @ @ a) ,O a) •C V) @ w 9 "' u7i O. E ° O O 4O a) @ O o> @3 aa-om P? a) La > -o@cai ° @ O_ NC Cuo @ E > c n @ a) N@ o c a o n � GCSE.: ' � � o � .0 -o a) ° moo c v, m L E O a— 0 o a) w '3 � N@ „ Q1 N •@ a@ -° - • y� d a Co -O ._ a) C O) _U @ N O ° w 3 3 a y, c E CO c C 0 a) C N N a t O N w ° 'O C L ' N N , CO d n w c c Cu E � 2 a a@ °c coco N � cYi m Co a ° ° ≥ w O d C to so a) CuC E a) N t0 j 2 O co -co N j O 3 Y > O "0 co N co no • a ≥ H > ≥ a) CCno� @ -0 Vca aaCu 3 � *-', M 5 ° 2c cra O c4 (0 'C Co N 3 y0 0) O > > Co L -O t �, 7O CO 0 O N th y Of o. o. a) co m 4-,„ v a .. c Fa m C a 0 ? .�°-' "ai o O 3 ° o r O � - o a) c L3 e.75 7 ai Co m a) E12 ca @ � a N ,—CD o us E N co O C 0 OO m a) '- C u) - 3 w o@ L a) U 3 0 >o .o C Q a) V) @ Y Y C m w u ≤ O C > w C C N O a co a E a a C Co Q) O ' O .9 (� .0 @ @ o @ a N ' a) a E a' C @ -,T, "0 7 7 0 .LO.. a) -O 0) Q 3 N d Co C@ L a 3 L a) ,C o 3 7 °> YO U 'O j a a O Co @ a) coca) H — Co E N w a) O T T.N 'O O@ a> c a) o .0 to -8 E ac m 3 ° > a) a) aa) — m - @ a) O a3) ac) O O L a) ` O U a) c a .N J O_ CL s20) 0 -0 a ca r cp-� CO 7 ❑ d Co aF a3) (n -C i Q (C,2)RI a t E H Fr 3 to a) 2 O O_ C E co 0 C Co@ Co a a) •— a) @ U NC)'O > N N U N = 00 t a) a_>) 'O Y@ V) CD N 0 I. 0 0 -@o u� E C _G E Z .- o oc `m `o 2 a`) @d f°n EEC I- - Q > @, Cu a N E C) co 0 cp «O a) .0 7,5 c0 O C N@ @ V) C E >, > c C �_ O 7 3 Q! -O Ti) _ C ' C @ O "O _� 3@ c° m@F- w 'oa g- ores y °Ooa°ic ~ u ruo� o Liu: ti J >o N c'i a• o ,� m a) ur ac TO a) � m d -5 o � � a� � � a�i @2 4 14. H N L Q 22�.U a O) �.2 E C O r O co 0 C co E N L (0 L C A Q . H H 3 c .- a z o a H@ — • x W - � c 0N0d @IVI1VW w t V CO F- v w w rc i 0 < W Q %.LJ- �% ZF F O K GI M m O ! u 0 CA n �� r o Co ti el o- o CO EV co F a F xi .` p 2 Z W co cco ov ti oo ::::13.,,,: : :::: : ::::::; . !'i s<' 'i ' <' ..-':' :::7 ....,.. . �': �s et n) \ 6 Lii o MX CI\ o CO o- .: x'‘ g°03x cox co co co O \ ' v x ole) op / If (L';' ` \ 7111 ♦ :S � 'u bx - Q co o Qy C° n , aF ' 4 OC ( I x OC w -:x , ::: ' a ixno co 0 F- o x \ \ x x '1 m OC Q , \ x.OC Z z H- on co ' . Q J 1Ja a w o-x m'.'.'.'.'.'. Ln in i H R Q Z co M `7/ ofco oo 1 H X F .7 a CC 0 0 "' xl-m W \. 26' .\ \ :.. ....F : :' P 7 n.� O O¢ \ o ce F m ipz wm a O N cin ii p xn, in z Mx m rx .�. N � o az / M M oo � o- Q Q �� ' 4' v r `rn op p'x \ I o x M Z N VI J 0_ U .. m x ZC M � ? D�� m Q ZC STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ^ 7+ • Region Four ,� OT 1420 2o°Street Greeley,CO 80631 DEPARTMENT OF 1 RMSPORTAl ION (970)350-2146 (Fax)350-2198 June 3, 2011 Mr. Tom Remington Director Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 Re: North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement Effects to Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area Dear Mr. Remington: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal transportation improvements along approximately 61 miles of the 1-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area to Denver. The improvements being considered in the Final EIS will address regional and inter-regional movement of people, goods, and services in the I-25 corridor. A property administered by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has been determined to qualify for Section 4(f) protection as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774.17 and would experience a use by project alternatives under consideration. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area (SWA) qualifies for protection under Section 4(f)because it is a publicly-owned wildlife refuge. By way of this letter, FHWA, FTA, and CDOT are requesting written concurrence from the CDOW, as the official with jurisdiction over Big Thompson Ponds SWA, that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify this area for protection under Section 4(f) (see below). • Page E-644 • Background In 2005, Congress amended Title 49 USC 303, also known as Section 4(f), when it enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 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 the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project that uses Section 4(f) lands without analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives if it would have de minimis impacts upon the Section 4(f) resource. The impacts of a transportation project on a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge that qualifies for Section 4(f) protection may be determined to be de minimis if: 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 FTA'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); and 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. Section 4(f) Use Three build alternatives are being analyzed in the Final EIS; Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. Although these alternatives may result in different uses of the property in question, for the purposes of receiving de minimis concurrence, the following discussion assumes selection of the alternative with the highest degree of use of the property. Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area Impacts Use at this location would result from improvements to I-25 including the addition of the two barrier-separated tolled express lanes on the western side of the general-purpose lanes as well as the transition of the ramp from the US 34 interchange south onto 1-25. The additional lanes would also accommodate the bus rapid transit. 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. The attributes that qualify the Big Thompson Ponds SWA for Section 4(f) protection are not adversely affected. • Page E-645 Indirect effects that may also occur include noise impacts to portions of the area 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. Measures to Minimize Harm The design includes retaining walls which require a 10-foot easement for CDOT maintenance activities. Retaining walls have been included on the east side of I-25 to minimize impacts to the property. The retaining walls would not impede wildlife movement and would redirect wildlife to use the crossing under the highway. Further design modifications proposed under the Preferred Alternative would remove all use of this property. However, if an alternative other than the Preferred Alternative were selected, the impacts described may be realized. Mitigation Measures • CDOT will reseed disturbed areas with native grasses. • CDOT will replace native shrubs as appropriate. • Easement acquisition will be completed under the Uniform Relocation Act. Public Involvement Agency coordination, including meetings, outreach, and agency scoping, began early in the EIS process and has been ongoing throughout. Public input on the possible findings of de minimis • was requested during the public comment period for the Draft EIS and the public will have an opportunity to further comment on the proposed improvements and potential impacts as part of the Final EIS as well. Specific requests to provide input on the proposed de minimis findings was made at the EIS public hearings. Request for Concurrence CDOT requests the written concurrence from the CDOW that effects of the project as described above, and considering the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of Big Thompson Ponds SWA. This written concurrence will help satisfy the concurrence and consultation requirements of 23 CFR § 774.5(6)(2). Concurrence can be provided either by signing and dating the signature block at the end of this letter, or by separate letter from the CDOW to the CDOT at the address shown above. Because impacts to the property in question as reported in the Final EIS are similar to or lesser than those reported in the Draft EIS we are requesting your concurrence prior to release of the Final EIS. FHWA and FTA are willing to make a de minimis determination at this point as the public has been provided an opportunity to comment. • Page E-646 • Intent for De Minimis Finding Pending your concurrence, CDOT believes that the impacts to Big Thompson Ponds SWA will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the property. Based on this finding, and taking into consideration the minimization and mitigation measures that have been proposed and public input received, CDOT recommends and anticipates FHWA's and FTA's concurrence that the proposed action will have de minimis impacts to Big Thompson Ponds SWA, and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives under Section 4(f) is not required. Sincerely, Caputo Carol Parr CDOT Project Manager cc: Monica Pavlik, FHWA Thor Gjelstcen, FHU Bob Quinlan, Jacobs File • • Page E-647 • Concurrence As the official with jurisdiction over Big Thompson Ponds SWA, I hereby concur with the recommendations of the project proponents that the use and impacts associated with this project, along with the identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). By: Title: Date: • • Page E-648 Mr. Remington, Director 6/3/2011 Colorado Division of Wildlife Page 6 III Attachment A: Use of Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area 6t ni ii sir,:: - , . W Big Thompson Ponds SWA Impacts 1 '' t, 111 ; rte , , t F I I 41 'too- Impact Area: 0.24 acre p %, r !4 :.t J f S . - ,, j4 . " cf, r 4 A , ' •r •i 'I/ y f- 1 III • 1 t. ji, r •4 : • 1 I _. . r BIG THOMPSON PONDS SWA t:.....,. ,_ . ,, +/r' J tsl, r_ , , ,s.,. ,„: — P, ,... . ....... A j) i r 1• .I . / ., - :. L,. } L A 1 . • I�)• k.‘, ' Location Map • , t, . i .Y tom. ~``• `4 - N 0 heal !7• • r• _ d - Feet North ::.,91 310 - J:V_Transportation\071609.400\_WVXV811_NI25 TO11\manage\corr\4(f) deminimis Concurrence Letters\4fdeminimisconcurrence_CDOW_121310.doc 0 Page E-649 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE 1313 Sherman Street, Room 618 • Denver, Colorado 80203 „APR.ga Phone (303) 866-3437• FAX(303)866-3206 wildlife.state.co.us•parks.state.co.us jI t ft Colorado State Parks ill01: July 25, 2011 Carol Parr, Project Manager Colorado Department of Transportation, Region Four 1420 2nd Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: De minimus concurrence for Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area(SWA) Dear Ms. Parr: Thank you for your letter, dated June 3, 2011 to Director Tom Remington of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, now Division of Parks and Wildlife(DPW),requesting a concurrence for a de minimus finding at Big Thompson Ponds SWA resulting from construction during implementation of the North 1-25 Corridor Plan. The request assumes that impacts will be negligible, and that an analysis of feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives under Section 4(f)protection as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations 774.17 is therefore not required. • After review of submitted material DPW concurs with this finding provided: 1)That during and after construction there will be no impediment for our customers wishing to access Big Thompson Ponds SWA for the purpose of hunting, fishing or other wildlife related recreational activities. 2) If heavy equipment to be used for the project has previously been used in another stream, river, lake, reservoir, pond, or wetland, one of the following disinfection practices is necessary prior to use for construction on this SWA to prevent the spread of New Zealand mud snails,zebra mussels, quagga mussels, whirling disease, and any other aquatic invasive species into this drainage. These practices are also necessary after project completion,prior to this equipment being used in another stream,river, lake, reservoir, pond, or wetland: • Remove all mud, plants, and debris from equipment(tracks, turrets, buckets, drags, teeth, etc.) and spray/soak equipment a 1:15 solution of Sparquat institutional cleaner and water. Keep equipment moist for at least 10 minutes OR STATE OF COLORADO John W.Hickenlooper,Governor•Mike Fling,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources • Rick D.Cables,Director,Colorado Parks and Wildife Packs and W7dfife Board:David R.Brougham•Gary Butterworth,Vice-Chair•Chris Castilian Dorothea Farris•Tim Glenn,Chair• Man Jones•Bill Kane•Gaspar Pen;,ame •Jim Pribyl•John Singletary Mark Smith,Secretary•Robert Streeter•Leona Watson•Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members:Mike King and John Salazar Page E-650 • Remove all mud, plants and debris from equipment (tracks, turrets, buckets, • drags, teeth, etc.)and spray/soak equipment with water greater than 140 degrees F for at least 10 minutes. Clean hand tools, boots, and any other equipment that will be used in the water with one of the above options as well. Do not move water from one water body to another. Please let us know if we may be of further service on this matter or other issues that arise at Big Thompson Ponds SWA during planning or implementation of this project. Feel free to contact Aimee Ryel directly at 970-472-4463or aimee.rvel'astate.co.us. Sincerely, Steve Yamashita NE Regional Manager CC: B. Quinlan, FHWA S. Yamashita, K. Green, L. Rogstad, A. Ryel, file • STATE OF COLORADO John W.Hirkenlooper,Governor•Mike King,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources Ridc D.Cables,Director,Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wflife Board:David R Brougham•Gary Buttenvorlh,Vice-Chair•Chris Castilian • Dorothea Fanis•Tim Glenn,Chair• Man Jones•BIM Kane•Gaspar Penicone •Jim Pnbyl•John Singletary Mark Smith,Sawn,•Robert Streeter•Lenna Watson•Dean Wingfield Page E-651 Ex Office:,Members:Mike King and John Salazar • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • Page E-652 Hello