The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112396.tiff NORTH I-25 EIS North - 25 information . cooperation . transportation . Hna ErivirorimoRta a - - - . ' 'Y-t.r:wr,►.'., - _ _ - _ _ L._ _• _ _ ter.. / .... r zj ffipact : ..y it -- __. ter _-y _ ./�.. -ft- , ih. Statemorit __ d _ - ___ . _ _ . Air _• i}. • g9'J _ .: .� ,.a-�-` �. j �..�•r _ +w tr(i, . • i I L . • t.� firr-1 - \ t tte • I . -• iikT tail 1� 1 ;aI\.fir.\'1 ' b . . [ „ - yAt c, it�•.' 1,� • 1 i 1- r A - i♦ jolt i: _ Pi."""64; ' r- -IC 11* :' - ••:tabal 0' .1 I"id. I I ALleil , . r {• p v :.. ry f .-4,. MJ,viiii,LfJ `rti 44P.L• k is 1 . .r'va • ,Tr', `' 1.-4'..... .. : .. .. . .r♦ • ` • .' i Ifay ,• r 'IC} y' rl a '5 roiap.f� Y.-... _ r• -•;',.-174.,.' .may1 ::: Z4.etr' J,.rI� Y 7 Yy . „....-..4. •!Z t 4'* . . . I �.,a,� ; :. , t •_ 40 I y ..),/. 1 • ;in 45, `:; r< ! •}.`'`*”.:.`t ' *tee . - .ice 1 ' VOLUME 2 of 3 2011 -2394 -I• ,. 2011 -2395 DOT 2011 -2396 U.S. Deportment of Tronspottot on 1 Federal HighwayAugust 2011 etp, AdminlStratlOn a • N oim I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Noise Maps • • (.)//-02.3 IF Final EIS - August 2011 Overview of Map Grids III ACjuri LEGEND V�iln AD_2 85 Mapbook Grid Cell r AE_2 Highways cal AF_2 AG_2 i AI-2 177 a ! AJ_1 2-�- 14 0 AK 2 = North AL_2 12571 0 2.5 5 ►� AM_3 I a is Miles AN_3 287 I AO_2 AP_3 —Ile 392 AQ_3 AR AS__ 3 3 34 AT-17273 ' i AU_3 AV_3 0 AW-3 � AX'C3 • 85 • L AY 3 56 ; F _ - AZ_3 • BA_4 BB_3 0 I BC_4 BD_3 >;"%•-•-•51 _� i BE_3 BF_3 BG_3 BH_3 B12 •it BL.3 B Q3� - o I BL 3 � 52 .119 0 ; BM-24 _ BN3 a 76 Fi----ta BOL3 _1 � BPI 3 L 'N ` BQ3 7 I BR-_3. i BS_3 BT_3 p BU—3 93 36 ! BV_3 cBW_3 0 . BX_3 BY_3 MIL Final EIS - August 2011 re ,Ir t•�t , i d, 1 I - r ..,..?„ , ., }t LEGEND -. • ,,,, .... O • r' �' •`�;' Noise Model Receiver � I, . ��,.. Mapbook Grid Cell 4 ! — Highways . : .,' 'ill• 1 , . I ; • N� 1 ��, • A • `-- t .41. $ • 1 a •i ' / North I q . ' i -- • , INI]11 0 250 500 Feet 4;iL1 ' • .. � , • r ,, Kam-', ,t • 'i - - - ` il I / J .,�• ` i1 tii � �i �A1 1 IS L' n • ! ly le 6%X Mrr , r' .-•'. •�� • • , • 0= . , CJN11,e=�' S`A. S ��'r� �' r '� i : _ •''':.yi‘rt!t , 4A ' ,r c� l'a IV* .. 10 fit: 63 0 •: , :" : • ar•t ,-c • ,, .n � _ � � `t ld- _ rr , �i{ • ' 1 r.ge s �� I iir ,1 I; 6 • SH1 •24 litJç .r' ? • 3 ‘‘)‘2 2 riii, ,, ,, , _ • i f lei. • 2' •, ,r1,• • - r I • I.F r 4 I i •mil _ .` _ - artitt lir e . ._ . . . , .., ,„, ., . , .... . .. -_:_etrril 1417 l fli I mo• `'• Cl A Iii• • •,•. . � l//// •�•J `—• � e li , _. • 0' lu t1 l ,• _ - rs -i rill 1 J I' ,'7, ' l I • '• 'T: •••• ::.. IIIn r•-il t , H1 _ 5 3 - y. • • l ill n '.• II . . cJ K I a ds / p ; 1 - !1E1�b I : G1 211. . -710X16 r ; ' �^ ' ilist • .11.0 • lit . - I- el - I } Ap 5 I ,,/,'? • , is.- Ifs P uM i i,A • _ e atilA j. ,e/ :SSA I • - ...„..t. 0, ,11 '!!!! - IIIII Y. I �; a 1 liI.., in R _ 5Q ,1.1. ..n. 'a • 4 " I Grid Cell AC 2 • •s �1t v i • •. } J_ - r Final EIS - August 2011 - t LEGEND 0 , ' i $ r. i 0 Noise Model Receiver A I t 1 I t � , j Mapbook Grid Cell • . 1 L _ ..; , I 'M Highways 1, 44 r 3I. P I` 111 rr 4 SA"' 4:41-rilsori North "" 0 250 500 a _ ,' °fir 1 Feet c , ' 111 -et . .. - r AM �5 J - . - ' leaflike- -:,. kid " ltr I . ;4010'. Er;?..till O.i : fr.: ... , ty r 'osi----44,77*- n "-sty", - . OS•••r•Ng 1 4 ii. L I_ irr "'Nit: ,, .11( %_), . i r"Pit -.\lir' I r,J , ff ,. , "r ,�y s 0 s.- -• • , ru c, .I:5 p: , N ri r , �. X551 Ial I '' .. „ :.!..... ,or %.!,... i Illiii • , 4 a,...,„.....--....• 5SV 1 ?'.. litrvirrit i III eil . 4 f r I IN I . , ‘ • r j Vic{ 1 .6Ft`5 e t ►t. S rr i w . .,„ . :- I C c I • I BFI• ��i'i6 11 P' •• 4, , e -- r fr- gr-. j ' I I...bop _ „,‘ja 1 WA - �- 0 i - ; .'-{w it....., ii LSI ' r � �r isko i . , , "ir .T ---: j ,_ : .. i b. e - k 11 i' - vi elk - �-i}.1• fr--L. • ? '( \ • ;per • < Al N ---to ill • F°G `-;li7. ` I. • i _ _ _ _ _ Sit-6 -*Ir! ' "' l ice/ rill i i . 1 .4.444 •p : J. tip ''' . ,• , li.tp*? ....„ R• Pr lirak ,I Il r _ ' ` • •7- Grid Cell AD 2 'I II, •1 ` ii .• •.. • }� Final EIS - August 2011 llII / u ; �' ,; LEGEND i O �.. _ f► �' Noise Model Receiver • i . i 13 ,, • Mapbook Grid Cell }} • • ; .F� Highways f --a ,10 • >< North k 0 250 500 I I Feet i 1 ir /"Ai ::::),,'.,:1,:, i %' • \..\ , - siossaiginii H. a '_ Phiiitea- .6; ( 4 III 1 .__ ......... a , is wk\ss ilr ii . , I{. , •IIS., r .. - If , .. III\i, 1 ,, , .,.. 1i 1 Y, 4, , -II. - '^ 1 . - - - • 111 t 1 .r 71-_. _ �u3*i I 1 1 , _ 1 11 r egg - al s'•'. ,T .a. 1 I • - 1. :- • } y 1 __:—.. R /ice �1 •y , r 1 I. 1 I.�' ''t' Si �t, � �\SS� Grid Cell AE III 2 • , � . I ' � '� 9 . _ Final EIS - August 2011 • � _� ` " r( / • LEGEND I '`' 1 O Noise Model Receiver s `' ' .� - . Mapbook Grid Cell Highways • --- ------ Il r ,i . Vre 1 t 44 .. - -. _ -- X6MI ' North i IIi 1 Tii , is . Ali 44 Y 1 et I � __ ". _ A ,,, a 'r.- - r: I M �► -_� Y 'f"' . 0 250 500 II 1 a , _ �� I Feet J J 9 _ ,•y M j�l�'V. 13Pm Ill I, all a 7 - - 1$ "` ` -r— : - k J a �' +1G�g\S - u bt ' 4 j4. ! - - 1 •i -- ' - I 1. �'A. i- - jL 11 4 � } ( 1.. H t A ,gypp�y i M � /�� w^ ter' I 4 .lycclKl!It^ I , ' ' I 4 tti: ii . cI1 i i ;°. 41 all I g I I NC • • I 1111 . ( , i y • 1 ft) 1 i" k, it pill ' , ill al -. Iple III N OFe\ss . • , " ll • w I. • • ! A i 14 , „ t I f I it, i 4 . i1 • i f Grid Cell AF_2 i Final EIS - August 2011 iLEGEND 1 O Noise Model Receiver • J , r Mapbook Grid Cell Highways •a r Y l FN North 0 250 500 n� Feet 1,1 ;l r, i • t1. SS\A t\ 1 illill q t A .•. .. •w I often .•.ni t'� •• • . • t•• ��...�... $.•• -w.. �, f.: c\II cl, tak*' - I. !. t us •i; I . -•.. . - .a:an. ;i . I c.. .T. . _ JQs - „ - — -_ r lI I 183 .• + , V ,i t I . ,, vit i .r.l5 ES l 1 JP L T ----- l` era .. - r. , -._, , -•. _— ...,,•ti.e.nt _ . ;tea • _ - - -I . snipe . _ _ • . . ....on 4. .1 . . _-------: i Grid CeII AG 20 l It' _ Nellb r _..,: It lir gagalliS \ - ili • 1 Final EIS - August 2011 is •; , ---1 14 LEGEND • r. . . il O Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell tI _ - _- : _ - .. Highways a II 4` I - - A : •t . I 1 North _ a 4 - ; - - - 0 250 500 I - , ; Lt _ . _ • II I Feet , i assaiisisannehAppoci 1 p• • t �� •I,,I I , l i GF�\�S a se- t 00,01DH�,I ! $1 - 9 • l c!)t4Y.s. -tall iiiii ta • , • f TE r ~.1 , , - • 1 _t L1 , ' iI10 �i r• ll It 0 , { . \,, I• GF . �.�.......•IDA, • 1\. 1 '-, I 1 , � rJ Afr on ' — — .! [77 II 0 .. 1. i c,,, i ilk asset ....._ , .. • • ii - , 'f IIP • I "Cr _ at'' i n. y • i --' I 4. b., s ,1 - t / b 1 I f// I „:f. altg as a _. 5� I , _ 1rTh I �I .n _ 1. —_ _ tim .I y• . 4� i ' :. ,. Grid Cell AH2 i! L.,- 1 11#111k a - - ..- - - Final EIS - August 2011 . , a 4,....., \\ I 0 \'s , - ._ •`� - _ LEGEND �IN � 1 ^^ 41 � Q Noise Model Receiver Z SN�.' w Mapbook Grid Cell jj1i ,,, ._. r '•• 'I. t. ,-- Highways ,- - 1 -a- ..Rs 1 b' a yt 1' 4 I . a North ii ! ..;c �T , 0 250 500 ,. • , I `� I Feet 30 .. 'r am= •g • • 6' if .. CI � � _I M e . '' ..•—' - yo..... _rye. • �'�+�� • - _ - {• •'1 •�a _f _ Y - _ 41 '••�• '•r •`L lc s 1 �' Y - . • < --- N1 ;92 ,rri ;,\fill as ,''rl" :.. ,ScA169 f �'`- - • .g��\S SN1 ► ' .. r • !4 ; \ • - ;; & \cv' \I, ,'14 tat .',.., 01 Jae ....---- 4- • -•• I I ;IN -.-- '''... ' :k1:11::::•:'4.°E 4..'l 1.._ :tall . . . 7/11.....----1\1-.--Hr\i' -.. IS. ts • sk ; oitLE $ 'ZL, •97 it } `,r ' 3N1 � 'SN1 � ' i . 5^t� \S IIII trmHere., 5Nill e �I \ ! sN` 9 f , • il. el. i a leke\ \is or igi a , ). III 4 � . rj, \ 1L\ r's: t.k C i.-, I� \ TS 1 .. . • R 11 _ __ Grid Cell Al_2 Final EIS - August 2011 L.1 • ' LEGEND 0 $ . Or \ I .3 • ,�, w Q Noise Model Receiver Jr . Mapbook Grid Cell ' 4 i''+ Highways it Tr d4,14•44; aPP. •/ ,• _ • • v • • y _ 1___. North• i.4` is ' = 0 250 500 � r : = , I Feet r 3 • 1 � _. i�--.•. • ..---- .� ll +. . °_ • •• , a a a!I !I.r--.7-------1-- ' „ r �- _J „.s...,,,.. —►,hoili f _. + _ , •pt . • 11t .... Il,j',wp.Al .sue..r'. „ St I � Q _ ' S } F CI app a .c. i c. `r *f" -00.01mow_• _-'_ . . SAIO • - ,• . • .._ _ ♦ � . - • .-. .• • . . Si al I • t f YL r� 1; 'I , � jIli S 44.....- - VA " t2 ' J • rf:S • i • ,F,r. - ' ;s a ' rye • --- : a e r- 0 . . ir le ; ' t: _; s' 41' a • tar:- 4. . .....41, . : �' Grid Cell AJ_1 r =' . 1 1 ii J- 2-4trill , 7eer '�/� �r.� �, mil` �j} h \ J � '� ,';• ," _ . .xis \•, . ; Final EIS - August 2011 V , ., ` • LEGEND Q Noise Model Receiver ,. . „.... .• .,•f eria . ,_ �� 1 ._ i Mapbook Grid Cell `i' ''' �+ ^ • • 1 :••• _ Highways • " s try-2 1 •liF I- L ' i i 'll • • li ..' 1�1 • • '1 Q ' _ -' .a : .GF�\`�S • 4 :. iii N o r t h Q 0 250 500 r ` t r 102• . �� I Feet . - • - - „' '• ;F., . SSN1 � / Tr- d , Noe3 Fr \\.. , I•k -- ' 4 111: 1. ` tf •, *�F�\ss r •�..r ---:�- �_ _. ft - pi 011 r 6f r.l, it .. . . tt, •.� '• �.•. L -S' .• •K.•L• , ! •�• i wJ'R .ll•L '-• ._ .r '/'r�• J 1 1V r 1. - h I ,• '.._ ,� � � �1 . 1. L.J • ' ' licit ..'1 !4 ,.. _ • i1 i 11 , , I( 1 r . • - It rLg9 ,Ji . r �,., I _�. f ` • `` '. P R. J 'f it,. /S,. } Mit.. t rr , • is, �fIII r' � .. - .4h•_ - ... , ( _ _.._ �� ' i t I •f ... . � :� _ r ` 1 . ._ . ` r, 7 1 li •,SM2a�, --&a- o2a6 '�a y� , ;. I V �a_ • at • rf ' : ° 1,4 I -III ; gai 11 : I.4 • re. is. jA ' ' — iJ �• g2`' , cc-4--m. -J f ,f. Y' _ _ T-2.."7-::•-•"•11-'-'- _?. Y<l R- _ rei •- , #1 - ��" / , . . - �. •iK‘� \• ' = ^6- I , tr' •1.,12-65‘.44 IP.� , - G13g ll . . / ' .4' _ 2• ��. ,. f J • % sisiiit.. , . _ —n L�I �0 • !• • iffi.--'I: . .., . .., ,‘, . tit ." , •. r: .•••.C. ' ..S $: i - X 11 f� Y ,eCe^y' 1]r� i i" T c�" ••• - � � }" � Al tsr � , ;sv ,. . 1 • • 71 ► .,R•- ;g1Q2 J I. r •. • �, �.c i , � .. !' �' �. '; Grid Cell AJ 2all .. . N • Mk S w - • • ►•t- /', r� / / In �* 1III �(• 1 • ! �1 - rr�r[, �,/'il�'r!'`r i r i�� =s' l , Final EIS - August 2011 1 • 0 .. ` '� w. • LEGEND ' r i / O Noise Model Receiver 0 Mapbook Grid Cell .�. , 1;��" ; A " ,, Highways Ichht 147"It. •L •y ; * f'1. P I. 1 eo0 . . \Ike 14(31- . . Co d North ;. N. • , l 0 250 500 ..•,:, �� Feet 1 ,•. G1AIc, • a 1 1 I , _ s++ . .. ` _`\�`` , IE... 1 1 • fll ut - 0 _ • I. • v 1rl • k r • ` - RI� ' i /1:111:::::: ,: ' 6 I. _b i = 1- y •• r. , f't err i {/ -; . it 1 11 111.1 r II r i I f g._ � �.I" .I tl J+ •iit' - '� ,i s,.nc. *. ,.... ca„ •-• c cs Frlaillill mac : e. . ,/ . II _. [ so. w _ Are a It il • '''.4 • a'' '' / : f ,, , 41 it • ;1 ta,t1 ... 'at!, 1 1. 0 } �! �y}( 1 Jj .4 V 111 +.: .r 4. 1 l l ; • tt I ; . . `. . •. ,� , . ' 1 r i C `lam e - .. P.-r- - f r 4 g., _ i /. r. 1 r, 0 .1 . ,• I_ p (1,/A 0-,;�> ` it _: _ �� Grid Cell AK_2 I_r(tiiiii-=� i �' _ Final EIS - August 2011 • 1 LEGEND 't iim Q Noise Model Receiver Ill 41,t \ : Mief w x 9614 � �� Mapbook Grid Cell ��; 't ,1/4i\'t ; i ' ± • mi. f• k �, � Highways /I/\ t % ti ` k • , '1 /�/ •{ 1, !, ` r i4 r i. I., ‘ , . North I � • I \' I.G, , e: , 0 250 500 Y , • .• • 1I� i I Feet t .%N. r .•.r;, . rr ice.�v- '4.....4..... . ;�•4 A V ., � GR I • i.4.--.tai..., t- 1 1 11, ii, liok fralcbs. ,,fir \ t•i ' N' • a r. 4 III II4 :1 • 'i +1 s--- , o - ' . e 40 ✓• ir i \ ' • \ ,.: -e•_ .., :iv\ H\ l:mss , 10 µ., % • • 1 t + 1k*\, f 3 , �•j1 .... SN1- N'N.NNNINNNN\s4bqs"* ‘ t"N / II 1-" \ _. • S 1. __ • \ 'Or' "Qii • , ‘... ;."..W - f Grid Cell AL_20 1 ,. 1 4 El Final EIS - August 2011 ,firer.-,. 4 Er • • ;-. f r t ` M e . ' LEGEND pII ,II 1, • I i • r -.• Q Noise Model Receiver C®1 Mapbook Grid Cell } ` Highways Are 1 lit. I elkmil �-. yam . y;,Q� fl :. I Q 4. ' 14 1 r = . .. • - . t. AL `, ¢. r North \IP } \. 0 250 500• \• , ittt ' • " , - _= .... I Feet e I\ L 1/ - \ 4 , . , -g ••• —. / , .r. � ..• N. r • +I•'-1 �T \‘:<647;<<",,ice Vr ill_J 'Y. 1 II 1 +.r - `rO "•674• a -f L y IS : y � •0 , is ti r Iiii al • I. 'I 1 , •••• • ; ti ... z.. rfte �1 ' • • 11 ' : • I . j '! � ' G6°' ; ''` • I III k l • ' ,i•. .• 5t?? i . orIilk% • /, .. 40 ), 1 1 v. r , 4 . Jr? • , , �� _ Vi=a I . r � -`u G�6•�+ 1 } 1; re - ,11 ,-• 6292 - - -•k • . , , 4 c. :,4 .1 , "Sic It; 1 '. • ' ! Siini ay rohlk lir 1 II tersa, , . , e ill A '41. 1:00:04or II. bi, IA i�,: 4 , , � , , �, y ,� -7(- -c •• �, Grid Cell AM_3 nl• Milo , ' r r. r !_•,3 'rt., y Final EIS - August 2011 1 . LEGEND '• "' ' Q Noise Model Receiver Ill �! " Mapbook Grid Cell • \II �`L Highways i '+ I ' IC • -I. • 14\ I 1 -1 � �\ North 'INN\ li. I . i I `�� 0 250 500 ��`_ Feet 1 • Y\ • itil\ 4 1! III 1 • 3 r' ilk �; ,; • 11.. ' -4 • N Iii. II. I I AI E a i ;141 ,! 1 \\I \id •\ LL ;• 4 • S • 4 •' .• i Li ill • �sk l r „ • H a . /�Y:/ • .. ' • •. ^�•' I - �,O te. f _ • 'S \- . , . r .. • - 1� j • 4 'flame.:-�''w;. 11 1 1 • }%Y ,. 12 'l _ _ __..... • •d , tea .pt seaisk % l' \ . i... Ip . j ' f: .P. c • • ii . _ T • _ 2 • Pr .le et I' 7 . • I ,u-•:cam.. r, t . -'al C Grid Cell AN 3IIIII •r i ... I l: '. 1 Final EIS - August 2011 - a .r t la: }. fr , , '..; ' '1l tit LEGEND Ilt440 �s , 0 Noise Model Receiver ,1 ` 1. _ • a - _ ¢ Mapbook Grid Cell . \ I Highways _ + %. CI ��jjj/ V Nl -. . :_ - ` ' _ �; • • 4North 7 - _ V,1 .~ i' .. I •r _T.._ . �'1 L ems 0 250 500 \- . • ` l I Feet . - ., ). , Ai t .7C4 lir 111 ,_ • rt. �' • .4. , !I I • •�. _ • . S i y v .. • . I". i I" i•�, • ♦.• 1• I ♦� hl,. - I; % I ' , At y. f W1• �. sue. '\ IL>+PI 1 t y '�, µ r. '+- 'sir,: .=;. �. .. .• v • • " l - ....Ora .." 4 a• 11141 • • fr .0 • � , - ,cis Grid Cell AO 2 G4 ,-s O_il ' : ,, sr Final EIS - August 2011 _ J t 7 w f I 1, ' . ✓'�'�;• - t' LEGEND , tea'..".,,, tilt`. rl ! `' tired' i iiii.citlii, . - O Noise Model Receiver IIIIII RF, � '' 014-• Mapbook Grid Cell y , 1 r 5 ; , x,. ' Highways -;...f 1 3 et v.., i ` \ti ./- a `t : l f r J t DO • at, North 1 �`r 4� tI ' 1 :r 25� 500 1 / ow.~ ' to r.. �r I Feet • �► fy r- j.; - - .{ A t 0 tr. % II \ ‘ (I .) / - t r Air 1 V • ..... ,, 0 . ./.8 • r 1 , .. ‘ •rte , ). 1 _ lig v i• ' et ' . Y� . .•r 1, rL' Illi ilig Iiiiiiifirroir ,I ; ICI I I40 �� L� �. Ill I . I1 >!.. ► i�r I ' , I. � ' �; iI 1 • Il �. J . • 11 l II i. ,'1 I � _ Ora" tt2.I I is I Pi I li f, •, •• ,,; s 1 �.. I 1 • ,jy o I It; I 11 ►� 1 - r jI il►,V 4 I's \/ ' 'I • `{ 3' 11 :I It il ' 1�, - I lik [tit II Il�IIl`IrI'III{III �I i, -_ G�si '. ,.+ • J 1 ,• ." ,� i ' * �3 b ! ,� , . . 1 • ♦- : 1► jo 74, r� 'tip 4 CIA wit?' ' ' '13°26 �` I ' 'i • i it Y' 1 O • I IA r 11 r‘v, ki . y O J J•1R &OA3 A5 _ kJO1� �g�5A g0Agw g� '° a �•� :j r' ,'r �O C3„ , ' VO VnOCI J6 VO-J� J� r • • •If 1 '•'•E' �. ` VO i • 0 i ti • ate.. `.. V • • _ 058 Aa L t > Grid Cell AP_3Ill f' .. Ag0„�063 %065 h 1 .!.. •, y 12„ lVJ f♦1 Final EIS - August 2011 1 •�2. . :; e�$ ��7 ep11 s• . ` ' I 111 4 ... ;l LEGEND pp _____ . . _ S �� =�p1a t. •5 — O Noise Model Receiver .t • ' . i• •�� Mapbook Grid Cell l • _• - act Highways t I i lip - j • f �. :if, 171; '41.. Itt , I $. i `4 as 1+ North $ , , L .li i s, r �' 0 250 500 i x ,'rl I, (Al' ' ' s I I Feet ' ,_ • S , I',,n I r d ,i � .. :r i i I T. r - ' r u . 1 L .. ' r a. • fi .„ I.It �� fig*'1i I • je . ; , "ft i i 4. , t 4 Ij • i~- ��, 1 Ai e wa ___ .1....7_ . T• rI b '.•: h1. , Dill 4 g , ,,, . . t„ ,.., ,, L i • \ , , ' r `•. .\• '�rJ y'" I 1 ,.1 r �'7 ) 1. •• •a a • r r I 'Ili L - .. A. -1- - ai*-7t- - i n _ . I Id [ lr ci\cs' ; a . , ..4 .. -7,:-T- ‘' O- I . ii —I F �y`44 ` ' °1 GZg1— • r-• - ' i . I —v }: •1 1, 1;1,.:. I!•legkr . -, • ilir"3 . 71 ot: flit 14"., ill.11 - -fraPtIt_an it • '--) iple•., -I.4 \C-...;\"f I ails r: - I •of.,....4 . . .. ..._ •h '" 111. 4 I i r ; r it;• r • .,;` �� Grid Cell AQ 3 �? A. I, — • ' Final EIS - August 2011 7 \t.. /.... f ' ''' LEGEND .......fir: I I ‘1/2 Si NseModelReiverH' ;1 ! • f r Mapbook Grid Cell • i - ,, <, — Highways i t;• / :: f 3-• 4. - Se - L• 35 2 i '• Co North .11 •• •ol..,.� �'q►'r Y i 0 250 500 �i:: .. ... �,,'''r'` Ifs i Feet r1 r fa ( . •1 r •°-- •r•►' .b e t• r �.0 • qq� �.S.`/�. �r :3 i kJ ' ;•• oaf 1 t 66 t / .b . ..,j: .. '1i >' 8 " (;' P 1 .......A.,„. 1 . 1.,,. 1, E ; e e i f . / iI �: f ! i 1•• . - � , fill* r r m \ I ' W W W W F f• -r am c,. ., I ..' . tr. %-‘10031414. -arr. ., Ill i - , --.:7, .).4; . • •Y �I. Aigv .„6:- cir�� ; kiwi I •• n. • gs.A ' ` � :3 G ) . l$ tir • P,h^ -..J• •'^-t i `'•-4' Ire - ' • ®_ 7: .. _ ,. .11 r. •a. it lip?: a? • •'.w... u 'I• •I inn L •� • i' }I es t • „ , ' J4 N , , - �_ 4%. 1 r J `d.• ILr. • • •.L`,.. .p- .. :.=,•tI •kry G�.. . ` •� . rte.,. - ' \ 4: ` -' ,fir " 1.1 'task,_ a } , yr/ - [ /' . �. IQ tt - 11eRs ,1 ',. 31 `� \ f 1 lr } • 1 ; ' stpn •I —r : DI* Ili r. .L - Fi 1 i G�`�o !ll F' • ♦{ ---�-` ,• sil I, ' I Grid Cell AR_3 all •I w N P I r____LI , Final EIS - August 2011 Sin-. � LEGEND 0 \ y �. • Q Noise Model Receiver r_ .. \— _ " �� u Mapbook Grid Cell< Highways '• ! North a' 0 250 500 Nil*. � � r I li I, Feet 4-1 � ' a t ,. ilia , " �7 1. 4„,, .r� . i, • . - ' '1?-,. \ t . , . 1,( • A N Ogil ie 1 r. - . - , • . . d I - , t I..y; I' 13 \� J� \ s .' ill . _ C • • .7' alr • '/ I •I . I �R:� +VM .- r. - -r , 9 h G�21 1 irk:, .1..'• -.era- ±.+ ( . �4 • r T •' . "i S, rJ` �' f • ; , • 5 r • I i C'w r:.�Ci I aJ' ' . j t l �f • 1 er_.;•.":i rtirs .._.......... it c7- •e- ' ,- ;,, , _. � rf' K .l +{. 1 :1 y EI i . -' ••_ •;- ' 1.> A •t - / 4-, 67r.:-7Z r ft. - ft -1::- 4 '. ' .I''It ii, ; l 'i 4 • , •• ..4, .• . , , r .•: qq` .• it t .17. '' ) ,• '� I i Tit } _ ... , . �. 's Cpl. /•• • ,•'fir• , r1~ I I • • , • i �,�' .'1 C . I ` AA Y S 1 S rig LJ1 I .,'H't • .. ! + i •1 . 1. • r�.r.- , tr — _ �,�. . , , , . r• ' . t.• , 1. • ems, r .!I t 0 4 . - •i ' I / %) t = • br-11114.1) Grid Cell AS_3 r , Ae• . • 1 ,4 � , t it a Final EIS - August 2011 ..^ .4.A s -'\�.L '�I, aes 1 /F 1' fir ce-lt ir • ��` �:. - rw "} �It �� :,f• ,: t lit, --1,t • — r— Q Noise Model Receiver • • , ' ?'e a A V i •`J M I F y ' . • `E� - �r Mapbook Grid Cell r/ / . I . - Highways f ' �,. ♦ �1 ..� .1-.. , e ms` I t ?2* �.5 . i _ I '4 in ,A.._ .. .. a 1. . testo it ( I � ; . 1, 1r l'I�rtr t, fir,`c .�, li A. - _. - "1 aa... -- - -- !! "v S:,=-.. ' v �' - - - �`' North h — -- 0 250 500 1 - - • .� 1 it �, `� I Feet 1 t - t;iii-oi it $. of/ ill /` 4 • •, , i /' ice � ti �� !IL? . f4 ;2 V. • - • j i • , • • ti • • • •r.. _ ti.•#• _ .. - __ _• . --w — I. 4,it. tri Iii a.- *� r • • t — )/ / Fri •_. - ` .•n. .- .. , 1 • Pc" ' ." . 1 ,A. Stal!,..2.1/4).--••••••-e . - - \ a. i • 4....-* ___ rilf is .... t: I I c� H( ` 4 ri. • '' ft`t1 ,,; Grid Cell AT_1 all _ -v.. te Final EIS - August 2011 1 • LEGEND 0 • _. �"'� jai _ O Noise Model Receiver �� J T_.•_• e, _ .. ��` ' ' � �_ Mapbook Grid Cell - 't�ya>+!�s. "�'i" r + .. t Highways 0 •• " -I) ' • le , l) F 0.r'.. . _ laitreh y../ \ ::��`# - , North ,.. � _:r , - y -- g67.0.".1 :2�,_ , ..` 0 250 500 _ 't; `� Feet .o ` ♦ 1. 1 \ ‘\, ' 'd • 9 , ' I:t Issas. _- . I :i ...ll l � r ' C, j 4-I. F: •-,... i ii - IC V • it Tat,t , , ,,.., . ; .,______ _ c3pSv1b6GO �1 k _ $ r �o' tM.' 4, — I ' 169 • r• all Al' wt s_ it 'fit J c- :fie` �! I . k ate I .412O .JJJJJ;_ -' 1 - - 1 h I I! , I • • J' i 0A2� �_` d . » II.I. 4-2.1.f.• - -�;. .J. • th ...i. jl° • . Grid Cell AT 2 «. d I, Final EIS - August 2011 • Ike, 'gal✓ _ e.- •\ -.\ •A\ ;Is:. ��'' • r � x ., LEGEND 110 0 s w,,; A 4 - k . . \ T O Noise Model Receiver • 1 1 r Mapbook Grid Cell ►, - , lir ,,▪ ,... S:i.-.. Highways t YI r , (. 1 - 1,• .. 7. ,L it %,-- _ I ..r �` tf 7 r . - • ;r G ,1 , �� .S 0 250 500 tfr 1 ,,r- � if ( Wit. Z. • i , Feet �� {~ •_ .. • al 'an • .•.n 1 ' r•. es. ... I , 4 ., ..cre'' .. -... .,.it .m.. ., , . 3,„ ais . i t. . , / v - t S 1 : , C IS` ' 41 . (fr# / I _ , a. I 1 k ` - ✓ ! ..4 $ :yiA.►23 s. I �. . I ,. Ct, -, .. - - ..- ''' I IL - 4 a, , 1 leg . 1 ` - t. tl • r l -- I 't ` , t t. - III lit r;7.72.1.41Millinirt Mr' `� r, � ti• .r. I I . ,rM1A 4• I I •* r 1) . Ir - t 1 K •01 .44- I • .. I. • I r Y e. ♦ 0 • ' • V_:r I`,i / '•, I H J ..a. } \ ` ' • a—_ -I / ,�� :air, r .. `rj".1�—_ r - \ : J ` . r '4. ,' , ... ::" 1/4- . - - __ - r. # N., Y h. Iy� r •,, C to X —1 ,� • ± i it s v. ac _ _ s, ;i v. iv • " �• \ • ' - " r- ` r.. ;H t. ♦ - 471 �r,., ti +1 a 1'+►• n - ,./ I 4. , ;,�1 A •,s 7) • • • • �t F1 r -y .—.... % It , ;( el \1\j•` • tie w, •♦ :4•] •a1 - •yam.. qtr' '• *� *. •► 1 II _ ( , r • ` % Grid Cell AT 31111 S. , -� • go i • sitesa !, 110 Final EIS - August 2011 r re)0 i Wife . a,- 4 "dr ot . . _ _ I. - • t -� ,r ,- (Kr .. 't•i . LEGEND 0 .... i is INoise Model Receiver '°r+'''� ' Mapbook Grid Cell it 1 •,r .r-I, .�nr `'.___ ..u'.r• ..• = _ Highways c k , if 1 !0.4 UjtTF* o 41 - 0 ii." t•-:•• A.1‘ It • ite".- 1ardik ./h . ;I: North 66• 26 ' r .4. 0 250 500 X' .o ` i i Feet aiassiodle I. ... i y �' t- 5! {p yr gait Ta_: q, l a�i.- � l .t�1�. �tA- ".., r y�.ir{I.t ` K L"•) , - .. - j �4 v tq•; 7 • ,- i , v 't-. ` 1 1 li i 9 r ; 1 ' j# t Ill ..., — • 1 t_• 1 • It : I M1:I,_ F: .r X90 il . . - - : Y • _ . . .. - / i• 1 •' , t .'. . If/ Arm ! • 1 0 , \ \ _ • All o 1 �� ill ? � . fa I ./.10.\\*--3/4 1, - -: %My .-- .. • .i.: r I t., \ IF f "e At. - - •�III , . . • , ^^ `\ It 9 rab- q .a', Grid Cell AU 3 ! r _ Final EIS - August 2011 ,�,•., , l i \% r , LEGEND • • ' ,.' „ ► iree. .. ... e • . . Noise Model Receiver : - Vii:,, - i};'� ' - _ Mapbook Grid Cell / Highways . '^ .tom t. 1 . r \i, ,V.; . -, _ ' -)-7t -Ablielt. 46-.4%; V\1 ♦tom . --- _ .• 14 ` North • . I ? \ ;,\ 1 _ .. ` . ti� 0 250 500 `� I Feet ••` ` y ice- ♦ k• 4.1 S I1K . y .wcc ��}et • ' /I\ 1.1 A ' ‘I'. \1 4% , • .' g 0.**11 • ,I „ , \ .,h'„ Ai- ' • ..N, ‘r-, ":11.• 4 0, �� i t.;.: i 11 . 31 o \\vici . lot \ t - I 4_÷,-,9. v • ^o -AN i;,. , Y• t k' • • r 4 �, ,.Gi-p5 -a _^ ._._- • i 4 4 1,AN \\ t3 1 } •fir' ;_� ' / \ .1,i \ . , 1 Alp.-1 a Y}l '7}7,t,1 , \ N. 4 , Y. ,sz lc i i .•�o9z • Grid Cell AV 3 i • , . • G1112 _ �• •13 • Final EIS - August 2011 _ _ r 1� —, tgir s ,.,t 1 t s % • 3• . LEGEND 0 �°. 062 r ;�,�� ;2 #` . ,� /4*• - = ' .... re ' �' Noise Model Receiver ' :4 _ ' Mapbook Grid Cell 1 / Highways _ . ,N - t� itG115 ° 2 %c /r North 0 250 500 = `� I ,, Feet _ st. tkift)dif . , .. ' t ii GCS- ��,.�C••i • "r___, • , li Ill ., , ' ' '? I ' 1 11, r ' • \ 1 fc , ,;:, I(.4 . ,,, \I\ c. . i it - . _ .. - - .. ae w ,i, c, i , '-. -: . k . � r • :" : .�1-.'` 'G , ills [1 • fir ► w`s". I 4, :Ft' I_ 1.1. - i liriTillirririi ' mew: . - • . �— � _ e 1 i _ ' ,,i , . ._ ,. -.. , Iii ill '." At I • .... ...... t i- 4 li . . . ` , ` \cos.4.......\ G63.... _1 Grid Cell AW 3 Final EIS - August 2011 i 147V•'dl ,'?A a , i 1` :a c i I. i 4 i i b. L LEGEND I I V"r _ _ -,.-.,.._s.. . " y : , .0 irk: \ ,I a P _ 220 S _ a '� G 1 ` Q N::: 1:r Model ti v C O '`I�. � L� ' •'w - ICI Li± : s 1 ,11. , Highways _I -- b ri 'y a LI 'off { ��' \,, North '- ,. 0 250 500 0 , • i/ li Feet f 1 1 ' 9 a--- i 1 I I I 1 It ID 4 ,,.,, - a . 1 N 1 { I • iii; • li I - 'I,. ' I3 ;; . I1 v a • 'I• FI I' _ r • 1 �, i I I • __r.0, „y.. . if44 III 7 �rv. all Grid Cell AX 3 / i II ti ,ii ... tea' I •.�.' r: Final EIS - August 2011 1 0 1 - ,t l' w ' LEGEND Hil ,fir '. 4:' t+ # i ij k Q Noise Model Receiver a #.4Mapbook Grid Cell C-1 , Highways Z\ North l 0 250 500 + Feet I ' .,:, '___,N.- il 1. f J • ,•� •- 1 • • ifs". - ell iii: PI * ./. : i / . • r - :.-zu vs. j T , ` �. il 1 111 • •I 11 ` M re. .� .w1 t r —___4 .i'' ' a ' ' - >1 iii, . lc; > ♦ p 1 414 ii I ! . 1 I i . I t ,a,1 - . . i r, t'. i 0 . k + i; �. .. Grid Cell A i `.. . .. _ ._ _ -cr._ 77,.. - . Final EIS - August 2011 9 v ` ,-��•• r 00000_late.madret-ad.' �_ �. 4 , -" LEGEND ► t 0 • .• �� I . Q Noise Model Receiver ips• II Mapbook Grid CeII . • 4.4 i - m Highways r'. et.., .4. • N I.• s. •• St 3 . v.4.iiir itgg71- 11 .. et • �'� yr North , a �{ ' i,- : ' I. 0 250 500 ♦ r 1, • I Feet t • / �t •,r • I , a • i ef•Jo a. . . w —1 Is', \ q, *rn . 1 �it r I. Cvl, !` ` , '. ............n. , , . , tfrt.. . h.„„ :i; , 4 e {T,B l fr�J .�i 2 III ..„.0 . , �w.es.......... e... •� 7 q, 1 R , . - • r _ '- it 4. . I '+ t''• • 6' ti r,c i . .4. ,,i, ::: .•. it 1 • x • 1 r ' - . ,. ,1 rY ''- .• li +x ! r a. •, J s •Y 1 j r + � 1 I • 1' r R ' ` - • / �.t;f:. • • ' • ,, 1 •. } J .� r Yw 1 • ' I.• '� .. '.I • x . 0 • 1 k it XV ••- \1 ' ( Grid Cell AZ 30 r ' i '•.t , . i ' It ` I r 4. 4 Final EIS - August 2011 w. r ► 1 - z, % .. r_ ,rl �� LEGEND 0 - `'. 3"F Noise Model Receiver Ias&I O Mapbook Grid Cell I I 1. • " . . L F Highways Is— $ b r . 1 VIN • -. — North ' 0 250 500 4 I Feet f I. . J. 4 I • r a' 1 r0 i i iI f.‘:a 1 I '7 ir w - I .. ... - .1R-`. _ . .• - I ' it•' til 1 . . •, _ it - rt. * 1 IIGrid Cell BA 4 Final EIS - August 2011 St a I -rte ; y�r _rti aI dr. f t -" �-» i f • LEGEND r' ' fiitift '�+ ��.• ' • ; ; = j I Q Noise Model Receiver IIIII j t _ ; - . II Mapbook Grid Cell '� car Highways I ! i � ` • 4. T f /� fi - / r-`-��' ' r { �:' North �4- ` '1`'`,� i I I = u. -fir I .. I Y 0 250 500 . . 2. \•,..:, � . < •c o9' I I Feet ' • re,. tif„,_,,, . , j ,, _ c.. ..;.. ..: : --..____ ...7. ,: ti.SS r a K, s. \\Fro;;;;30:H, %iv , , ,1„,. ,,,_ - -lei ..../ 11 ;-11.' . , • •• ...„ ,r,.. Ng., • A\ r • s: Y. . ti 41 A-a� v•*-:- i 4ffv I; 1 � J t ' !. ` '� � • � r• III • t r .I' (6 cal,' t NI, A - e 1O` './ 1 till + 1 I _ I I- 0• I r a1.1 _ eve 17, r s+ 164 a Y}:. lam. \ ` ELI Leal-, rM_ iii it— . ' f • r• ' 1 .• I. r -© t. t • , J Ik\ <'_ ‘ft• ...i t.t.'•• i Tik; p g 1 _ ) . . ) :7 . I-I,'' ' \ \• ,,. •ti f, . .,, ...,„ ; . iti , ., , , _ _.. .. I. 2Jti .• , ` - // !r It to t !!•y • I /- I �S/ . IT • "- ` C; _ it I ' r! ' .� l'• S' •` hi ti ilk . • �10 -7t ..a. 44 i I Y .• " y3' 1 i I P 1 a Pe • ,. .,,,}��I — ''. ^.•- far•- "• 1 _ - - _ _ , 1 I JH ! .t ,- , r AI Ina • '•. • T Z 1 tI�_r � " Grid Cell BB_30 it 1 f 7 !+1 , . ..J i!! ". • _ �� 0.41 ,t: ! r 1 iCll Final EIS - August 2011 1:.,` I jr r 1 a J , . _ ✓, . ;l' ' r}; + ,� � � _,: ,111 i LEGEND r emu '4 • O Noise Model Receiver ` _ ri __ -3. k. • I �. Mapbook Grid Cell .��-"� .• Highways /' e re e \ FI \ ilia Y } • ti4 pi VIN • f •a . North (3/4-: LA, I i '�ce' Ir r 0 250 500 �� > / ` i Feet • r - r -, • `. . fr. . p I , . .. , sicet. ,\r'-x #l' ill ..• . 0 Il • • _ ` .yam I • tL: ."NWf ' y ` mil' f 1 PM ilia I • 4 .,, . . ,.... in t.. 'mow All__ I r rhC r essigilli , 1'• h` • _ ya it _ _ _-.n - --- 1 �. r .0 - r—..r,- --_-- � T_ • ~tom F _ " ' v 4tatiNEi - Grid Cell BC_4 " ----- - ' — ••-''' - -,.- -..... ' L. , ___ _ _ , . _�'., 'ri Final EIS - August 2011 T V' •.1 • „ _ __--. _ ' LEGEND -.,ti-�• ' ^ a • ^I file .r ' _.^ --= I �'., O Noise Model Receiver III , . . _.... 1 -it , _., _ __ ______ ��-^ ___ ; . Mapbook Grid Cell -_ r Highways -•itie,,.... . , j_.Fj� 1. .' •. • — S_ L, : v_ '-� _ ter• iI •,..• r. 1 ... a• .. i . . A. .4 —41 tk. . 1 1 ►�— » — North r 1 Y�� *j�•� `��.1 1 I 0 250 500 ,;, • 4` . _ �r Feet 4 ar a , / 'yT1��17Ji Its. . • , 1, I 1• ris...y� - P..y��tf�. 1 a . ; , 4. S L ifoii + 1 ', ,11 '•,ill ,- • ' '^ , ili"A.w i ' 4 s ' '' ii. - 4 ' sir .,,.. ,.. ‘ hil I 1 : i .e.._ a 1•••• I _ •.-. __ y . .. _ • 1 • ___-- .. iiiii ,..�N a be, et Fir I I J �. III •, .. , . c. - _ . .. .kl.rode I . 4 ` ' li { . • II � .4- I 11 I I , I' 'iIl Fs. • A I ' il I ' I • �'�` Ij I . i •;:i i iiti • 1 - '- • '' , Liswasiii . -, •;' ' �` I , • III //I q - ' 'N \\` ICN741 A • f - M Iy'n 41 �. 32 111 i 1 • G { I - — - ��\v\\ i • 1. - '.4 • ? '. ii � rlll _e Y 4-/11. 1 . t:{ 1 11 11 `LIIIIIIU11111191f II II, no•' 1 r > Gat Grid Cell BD 3 III • • 1 t $3 ai I — 0 . G'\. . 1 • 1. - „4-N, it-t-. • . • A .. i Final EIS - August 2011 4 t , . , i lit ii- �a5 _ •• 1Imo ' LEGEND III ` G i_. F t'�lrisln A, .. ,w. ,a'1 , , O Noise Model Receiver 1 i Mapbook Grid Cell I = Highways OT awol • i.w. w s 4a "` I f ^15_,,,._ (� r i �� parr $.v1Y_� L 4 .� —'1 - Northtth ,. -- + - 1: G2� 250 500 • , ' 0 IF F-- -- Feet -...,.. I it),G2 I 1 .. _. ..-. - CO - �--- - - am 'Sl" ie. IN, . •,. . . , ,. ., .. ., • ; % ;k f \ 4 . • 'ai , ,4 •• ' i • n • if/ 4) $ I ' \ �M1 �' .• a �r I. i - tit% • °1 / • Ill 9.404:44; . - ;�'\ II�� if • ,•- ,,- Init ,. , ' • .� 1 by Yr ' '1 j =ITi : i. i! t t 1 I - . - 1 I 1 1 )h I I. • - ---. asAg I d -, 1 1 •; `Q(L 1 4- • Ill i ; Grid Cell BE 3 Final EIS - August 2011 • 44 . .:� LEGEND ;' � , 'f ,.r: O Noise Model Receiver • • Wm sr.. a �33.�.�.'�1 ,� . , • - Mapbook Grid Cell ! _.,�.. up [ rce Highways&stria: ,r , ...c v.AL 4 I I ) ' Fr r . pi ,, : . , r , . , ,_ _..,.ht is ,i , . ........... .... .. ,,,�,I '� .•e A.r - -__ _ , , I MS 4/ i 1 North i • 1 1 ,f }`` i 0 250 500 jjf� fit'• � ' • �4!. Iftt ,t,�; �m� I Feet I, i ` • il I .41 II 4 • 14 4. 0 • ! •I - , ; k. I • • :t1t of = ..' pr, • ` 1 , - i, '' _. 1 Zetirialf.H.. 4011. 4,17 .-r- 11:1-1:: ? - - 7 v ,„ • filt 1 • iit v ; ...,:-• A ; I . . . Irld / , . ., , „ .,,,, , . , . .r, , _ . 4, .„, . _, , , . . .ii,„ . .........,,.../.\\ 4, .... , ,, • r _ -- a ...-- .". . __ 4, ♦ ,7 , _, ..., .. . • ,. ifs - 4 I LI-- _ ..7. e/... 1- r 17.1 ersti i -..... , a ,, .1., 44p_ . : ,.... .,..,40 . „. i i; -.-00. _ _ i , • . k _ i , .. ,,,,„ •.t i rte+. r 1♦. ' . , AA eieqT ' tin Grid Cell BF 3 0 ' .# ,'&is:71%..I:_ Final EIS - August 2011 . , • 'lir;� 40 ;I( ;z0 1 -: `' • LEGEND k • _ �. ,f , O Noise Model Receiver *; ' _ Mapbook Grid Cell a! .0 F. Highways 1. lj. I,� . .� .'r ` ' {• . lY _ North s� - 0 250 500 * • •�•. ' `.1 Feet , • 51r' -4 - ;Y- - '!1' d '""mow ENEMY di ie P ern M.� tr � � • , 44I „1„..A\ , w • M�11-IM i • 4. F , • dill , • e • II il lift , vir YY •• 'GAIT .•i }[aill :... . ... is Y . -� 1\ t _.i` X11 -Y •,T•' OP 'S,.‘ G . s ii. _* • Ts '}• •lei • �t, . ..„ . . _ ��eZ53 �, ......,1 , . i ., it , . '4. 7 . i ‘ . . ...., __ , , li , .4-40"3-1,—,..—,..-ii - 1 'vl • 1 i•-> _.. _ ^__ _ - `--� 1'-_- .-. ^,fir • /r��' lir: M , ..\ --- ....% . lip •T :watt;-_- �- ..-_r 1 i�••f G Ihhhh_hhts- i. • d { w �� I .1 �a 1 —el:- „ . �` II. w. . ♦ 1'All •I ..., • - ap-. off. 4 , 1 ! • - G� . *Is 71 ! i ' i k i iit. ref ,.. %)e- ' ' r it d I . ..' • i t . i[.... , I , . N.:N.% •ib- • r 'Y il et_ _ •� • iI ��n ,irt. ttfrt y ��_lig:,171 .. ae er I: i ' i 1-1 .tr-0,--• . , • ", ''.. I • • ,..all1* ' ri irt 611 .YID I ( •Ire il w • Grid Cell BG_3 '� •' . e4i-r ' � '1 6229. ! - �a - Final EIS - August 2011 • Y2tL.T ' st 1 _•r .. c..1. •_: AO. afaiP - = (. �� LEGEND f' 11MB- I' -` ,G 2 I t 1 _ 2 30 i '' :t .i• ' -" — '� ' ' O Noise Model Receiver ` _ Ij •l . I. r - Mapbook Grid Cell II. c1VVg@ ..b , • Highways �_ r r — •, , ', • tl i ► 1 • 11.5'4• 1w. b • • ff 6191 y. ' e North • ti r' 1 , t ' 4* t.t f 0 250 500 ,r ti: ) x 1 I Feet I, ' Ic. .• `_�►•h • . n. t • •. it - I 2 e , kili a .. G19 / _ t I • ' 4 • !•< }. • \ ,I 4 ail H i t ., .. e .. ; , 4 • i. C\� n ,j i 7r ' • w' a , • :�• f C19 4 A �. �_ "g 'f44tl r1 - • J.. - 11 •.f 1!R ern ��' lar •^1 / fl ' G NP-W�i . SM ^G. mr 4 et. I ey • �� . • 1 fJ. '�' =.�#►'� illillplimpez.b, � .:._rtsIll •• .. I• t r i , . I J : , 1.-. `lijr-is) 6196., . 1• ` . • ice' tette* � • T ♦ ' •} < • I. a 1•. n A.2)-' Y •. T.--. _ -_ - 1. .J p - ,- .x • • a a o• 0 Q, 4 - 1 9 r .. .. rli• i. 11. „..�.er-sr•• 4. r rat atX riPleir"7"1"47.:If. illi 11 II A - J • :1,1 III a fill �. •.fT � � _ - —_ I • � Grid Cell BH_3 III J�,Y y - n•, • II. . F. ` ,:. •` , f--- - a- ., '... - - e.t - aliali Final EIS - August 2011 r ,4- j 1 -. 1 �.•/ ., 1. I ! LEGEND *et0 _ ,> ' • SkiO Noise Model Receiver ' —' lees • Mapbook Grid Cell • 1 1 - Highways ti 1I; - •- • o , II .._. •••••-•••••St i .• t i r. 8 1 . ' ill!rlitt. :‘,...": \ , • s'., North , ( III. It \ P I-;- 0 250 500 I. 1 , 01' r t i `G1 V" I Feet GI h _ --' __ .f' 17-..-- 1,-L J I --1.---- -ri --.---;1/4n. ----.ISI )) t - ii tell i , - Ip I 'I • 1•'1. I�'. I �'� 'Ill litigH,1 1 .111111, 1r RI I ;' • ilor t Sr In% • • • P . . -9:, • fi r . at • ''' . . , , .4 1..I 1 1\ II . e at ..: . I.1 i . .•- _ I \ .. .S. A i,, .. ..7.. c 4. . .4r.- i A. ib, . . . .. ,.. . ,,,.. -, ..civ tims........„ - . . . t, . ... ' Nth r,- 4 Y y s. } _ :, �^ 639 .1. 1. �. . .� I ill lilt. c� 1 �� L. • (" ' I a r " "Gil - • / _ ,.., i 1 I 4-- i t 7 p I"' G2o3: ` r •.s :3 k II�. { f 3 • 1 IT, • t:4 . . le . ...... • , ..... • • • . : .... li• ✓' .'!�. • 1 t )(twit ,. .vim t I • J •. 4 , z. - /-all . .-7. AF. !3 .---r-b-----z -- y ,_`, • t"`t .,� U y y 4-poor - 1' :�., _ • ,! _ f• l zr Grid Cell BI_3 •a L, c0j I • -. ^ LYE , ,ti --• - • , 4 . ' - _7 `�y l ..i I II 1• TFinal EIS - August 2011 iir • Gy" : , tie 31 _' '�--' -ll h GZ • 9 ,,K .,�ul 'Gp � �, • :,:._j IL'4 LEGEND . k - i '. 1 ; y-a•-n Q Noise Model Receiver ill f� ,� f I�'1 �� Q Mapbook Grid Cell I� • . - >,p .. i ,. 's„ .;',' Highways I , c •I • i 7„.„ vN _ . . . , Y. - 1 ri ii Zp� .ars 4 •, 1 f - 4. . z\. , a • .. .. 1 ,fir - III 1 �'• ,� .�, L 1.! T — North .,Y _""pi f 0 250 500 _ f - _ l? ' • - -' �I I Feet - •'-T. -r. . - fir• is el - ' -sir. �,� ,_:.. • - _ i .^ ,, it 'I Ili 11%2 pr q <' a ;41: = I. , . . �,• "illI - 1 f I . ' \'. \\,.\H I �y J.1' U c y /i',Bi A- I t . `AL..- ;;yam;--4..a ` ,r .g:-' 1 , . • rs . .r Ir III ., 4„. . :. .: . ,.. ... a , !. .i., it of FT \\ i i, l \ •a.v. �s �� ' ---1,., .. . IM ...jl 118 t „:-., —' 1 . i _ . ... i . . , _.... st. . ..... ....... _ . . ..a.,,... .. , r } 1tF J [yuy.� i.y.�L (*fit yr - iM w,,{•f$ I' l k a .,g •J�".i 1.sm •• 'I•^-a_.S.ic r.�.. •• •,� { .i ,f I r t ilt� • i I •- . tit lit f• 11 ii • 1 1 . ,•;. fit' . 4. . •;. - - • - J4_ -• -.� - • a). '• 0 fir 'Pr. ,Ki .- i I `x'1'1 , r . • , � •* - .\71} s Fr? . '.. (41) fb?is .. ill i .41 " •.� ..I tzli . . 4 4\ ... +4 v 1 li ; LI '� Grid Cell BJ 3 0 .1 st r - ' �w l a Final EIS - August 2011 F , LEGEND 0 ,,,N . . -, } f Q Noise Model Receiver r Mapbook Grid Cell \ / • t • ` Highways 4.1 '... / FIN North500 . • 0 250 r. �� Feet ,, • 6_ y .. ..4._s r. • • °' I : Ikk I 1 T • • ,-• 11 ,�. • r Y i I. `"' jli ✓ . \ I WI t) \'' ii,re 416 . -^-r:._`i-+'fir_._ _ .. 1_ '_/ 1 . '�I ..... ...a.,•_ _ _ I. ._ • AL-• ry 1 A•• r• r Ii .. „iv,..... •_. IP I, l w F • • a. •ICC=__ai _ - et ...a).- "."- ''. — a r + -�� 219 I. c sq+� + ,' 1 �G . f ,jr bm (/jam. R . ,' - , . ... ` : Ell , • • .,, , . ' • •r` • • es: ._..- ♦a te . � S • i, . •/ , uIIIIii ' • • ' , acej m La _ 4. 17,11/41 i / I it ft . 1 ia& F • b iiiiii O \Wa .♦•!M..a N" � , �� •� ^ 'd .'WT - 1 ,1 .`' �•`rAt• i.f�f ' V. / l_ , 4 ��4tii I • III _ , ..,. , ._ 6, . . , . -� � Grid Cell BK_3 Ir 1 it 'r- ..•••11fN-I, •.. '`'... • t T N...LLI:pet 4 1 0 4, l s4. tit:ill 1 • L i Y Final EIS - August 2011 1 W. w • f - iscri nrin • Vt.i: •''.l<. � \ , •‘i% se • { - �;, LEGEND. .. ,.. i.v.. i .__ ` O Noise Model Receiver ._ i• IIIInw t r Mapbook Grid Cell 9 f Highways • - d II IF i J I 1 1 tiJ 111 J, \\ 11 4. •;e1 f • - 'a 1 • t North I. 41 , , �` . .;�_ 0 250 500 • I ' 7 iis 4.:S- I Feet • �, . • MI P. • 1 • ••• . * ..kii P4V - ", ' '-' I) It t. j611% a I1 Jr - • 4 • xr t it4 ! ��i � I � � is • .,, Ti _ �lti.1 .iC . : i%� • l• ••'i -•I _r 1 1'ak. '- - - --_. . _ it: •:::_, . , -ire l'*-!te% - <. - ' O4_ , . 4- N • h'dl74;4:1 1 yf j , „pa,.�. .„ ,� i0 Sri i. M • •. V ` ' dI �` ' U UntS reawrsirci • r _. . 4 1 (, —,y f tt�.aGnr G2�2 eArgo . - ...„4„sie....0)! I.4; , i illy km rgirmivinkinfo ?..,, nrer• re eve*ATI • rafitai;:t.lar7-.[d1 Van. teuwrp a• ettlikaterzettz •• 1 •.al 1R11.arint,_tlp geia14, •It. rK lal t4 e 7�. A`lltlf� • c. HI.• l• '-d114 o.• .. • I `: °Abs ',erarr. offionditeN 'it w.� UM1NO. ts avFw* i t II t t atarri.• trrr cawxweaw vat• ,,wail 1' •-a1' y" 'ttC4 K ,c a.♦' .m i t: + reeti a• _ w t I , � sr •c,,`war,.1 aN-1•.I,V174.• c Tmint 1 ...3iW1YJ'w• .� NI K•w 'rl� V I.. " .-..a- i l rr •t • I 1' -/ fl •at 1 t • 11 1 - z e. r ta ,i . i, JE *1.... a . '. • �� y y.., . .� ; Grid Cell BL 3 • is Final EIS - August 2011 r . s ;, .,. — '' LEGEND 0 , �`.---- Q Noise Model Receiver ---4 � f Mapbook Grid Cell fr Highways `t _ 4., •., 1 AP- V/ �l� . Ai North I. kri 4i 0 250 500 ii ; I r imi I Feet - .. + - _ i ' Il • i I 1 , Al I 1. fil 1 1 '\ _ j./ 1'. I\ y Ill ,ilill i • 4 t • •iSt aa or • . 4\ ...' a \ - it. 1 rsi i::I-.i... ; .LT; a Al G2 • N t ty • • • \,� �~� ill , 'i. • I • I . • i f . � r. . IPOOSSIIIII."Iiiiiiieriiiiiiiiiiiij. I. L :44:: ., . I it _ • Y I - ''.44•••••••";16 • 4. d.• .,. ...ti, ..,..,‘, _14 t -, y 0 Pi 4„.. % 1 Grid Cell BM 4 " -, _ .e."1..-'...... s p •j Final EIS - August 2011 R i t. ; T Tit e if 40,446.f 1 i ill X AL11 If LEGEND . _ - o1111 __„,..r„..1,,,,,,,,,_ =R Noise Model Receiver _.,... _. 4. __ __ I 7% _ } . - Mapbook Grid Cell sb . ` r t Highways I r I +i' 4 ' , 1 H III . 1 •\'1 '` S. 14 I1J 1 1 i� 1 4 . , ' ' • NA •• „l 1. ` North ! i 1 r49 r• ,� i1 == N r h { t ? I 1, -��• , ; ` - 0 250 500 't • ` E_ Feet Sr - �. t. 411- k _ IY"+. _ - - 1' 3•' .� - � i(- ♦ %'., i pi / Q i' 1 A'.t 1, t. T '�' - 'Ism' `' I I � - - .r�,�"I » .I�"� ' / J� -;t L I' i . t 1' , .. 1 n ; ". et.. 0 . i ailik) AA .4 �f i -I.':,. R` it , _ r-• i. . } ll It Lam.- /ye' • - .r. •` . " ` - _ JI JI / G 1 • .... ,_.---- ilk iirt' 4 c,1;: TPL Y 1 i d; t10( _ r „Si ''' - 0 it. i.... _ a ir, ist : , ) ll� .. .for • '—,� ° � �' 1 / + I r 3� _- •, . i_ - 6_ , ,_.. it ar - 5 - .4 .“..i4.1rm- I 1 4 Is I pie ( •A: . ir t is S y or. .. ... M R� • - r ;.. t`j !. 1.l ,1.1.E _ * • .,...a. : _I f RI • _ Y • 1 VI. O V 7 1 V.. '1 i1 . E (Ct - i 11 I '� • �• r • bl r. or h .1 Ikl i , • Ill � �_y • ii — se 1 IN44.4 Grid Cell BN 3 _ 1 /4 yy(. , I "_ Final EIS - August 2011 • Q' _. J. rets3,‘"Vv ii s. s q ,_ �'� V ,- ,. z`N. LEGEND 0 isr . v ._ ai. _ x.� O Noise Model Receiver . Illirr771- ea,- . . �f' Mapbook Grid Cell ., "�T• H ky, ,.gp- Highways v ,i • �... . Pi y_' .. r-• , r, _seer' North 0 250 500 " alp, ' I `,mod Feet of • 1 I . 3 , •• II i 1 a all i• ‘•• 1, II ,, % rallellans`m- ...�.-.ricer ��:�..�' " "�-k Jr:.:_?..i: - - - _.- - - - - • • , 4 r_ ' 7 •r �.. 1 S - I • • I. r % • iIt r, 0 . Grid Cell BO 3 Final EIS - August 2011 . a r , ` 1: . _ i.. 1, ...i:,. ``- a ',._--V1 LEGEND • • T ,. • y,� lill k`. _. '' ^— - I Q Noise Model Receiver • :.• ._ I Mapbook Grid Cell • -_ �-- ea�►�. , Highways •t 1., ., •I ,I t� " " c North j + '‘‘.0,1,,• "•� ♦ �, 4 `1 Sri ,• ,• 0 250 500 ' . ; } lif • Feet • r , i i 111 , r • si. itsz kw S:• ' f t' f ' ) ( !•I • • • • • f C r - • c g •- r , • • • t , : , i ,i it AM ' ,4‘\ ir re( s ' p _ • - •.� •� 1 ,rigi ye{ -. , :gy, , .�`y ,., a • Y III ! dpi{1..1 . 1.i • ;: - i .i. eatzH 4 100 ... OG2 / ,^ % mow it._ �I2r / Y a • ++.r • 1 w tI. • • VA _ .mot. J -.-. I 'f. w u u L♦ J�. Ii ♦�: .-- _ _ . _- -�-r_' • H!•�'-T-w�.--� • 4 , 101 V r .„ ,I I 1 t t ,. • ® • ' • .-� • err•- r 1 11 ' . . F. M1 _ .: '; Grid Cell BP 3 Final EIS - August 2011 ...\) ) ill ( at.- . 0 ' , . LEGEND a0 Noise Model Receiver Mapbook Grid Cell _ ≤" Highways F ' - ///y//, . .-. 4f • i. iJ, 1 tit • litt • ‘‘ • / . -c-'s• - • t ice. 1� `,`—_..^---iim .�ip r - - North -weir a.. ' ;.• ,,e -. . _r: .. -i. '„► . 0 250 500 - .. ti. I Feet 0 ij .a'., J w . }'. 4. " 1.i , J t + i r. ,/# 1 - - ..Ii4INSC0* ` .= . ..tom • 0 - , \ • lib 0 ... • • _ .. a,YAP; • ',� _ 1 14 Cs• \ i% r t,` y 11. 1-'1:pi 1 n ,- Ifs. .,-. �._ 1 ' 53 ��- - ;.5 ., ' . 4 �, Nst, . _. -.1... . -,.., \ MN ' . 1.. z 0 . Te. �,�; 725 _ Grid Cell BQ 3 . .�) _ 81 was. t — I. :. _ r.. Final EIS - August 2011 / X� �. c O` - ,J +a ti. . f� t. r. �'�for- LEGEND l Ill 14 Noise Model Receiver •-. , `r -,yam-- �f Mapbook Grid Cell • Highways • � l 1 WI IS I t :AA. . • 4 0 "*" 'is -44 s At : . "`� ' - North _` •Tt fir•` , - ` a ;� 1. t. 0 250 500 SSt►►" ar.,, / ` . - I Feet - r rl "" s a 1 j _ cif- --.1tV:It' ' ) de -wild- hi 'ild / III■■�{■4'j, i -1 i L - -•• - ! I �� \„ ` .. -w P: aVii' }., • 1 8 4 IsI....Th _..4t....-.0. . .. tillailiS • '..4 5 ti.: . i, • . .0.1 .:. . •.‘tia . \ • 6b J. • • iiitile . _..:: ....__._.E._ ___, • VI Al. as J �r1 • •i- } • . if ' Y� A I _ .'et I > f - �•_ 3 t x 3 ) . , —_/.--x I _ -- , •. —r- - �_ __ ...al al, . • 4 • 1 ' its* / . a . , \0 , —4 / le e , - - \.:_: , L. 1, • •M% Grid Cell BR 111 3 r �� s ; �� , it Final EIS - August 2011 I ' • . . _ i . LEGEND _ _ ._ _in . . .., .1 : . .. - - . . . . • Q Noise Model Receiver - • Mapbook Grid Cell •1 Highways iv • . . c . t ., _ North • .r", • : i:;tit ''+t - r 0 250 500 - . . I Feet . �, . �/ 0 r • / d I. 1 Pt �, ,tr- ` • !.. min . t 41,li , 2li • Ira• AT G2 `\ wpb • lj, { -n r-- rr.r 1 n' Ali �72� f I • t23A 11 • C ,t , 0 I be It MI OD f _ trw _� I ., - .nAlt act-- —;4----.-c P. Th. . .1 -11 -----.. t_ -.7FH , r....--. ..: . Ir Ai , ! H'I. .. 111 y fie i r• • f - - Si ''4 I • -e_S.t••=t)=--arts. j . -. — . it. cot 4 . e4 , ., 4 4. _...-c e .t.,04,4:04 if 41 �.Gj2X A. •;rat •` ;`'. II / 1ff e ,rar• -h • + f .4:%ggir ••••: . ~ ~l Grid Cell BS 3 . . it ! �l Final EIS - August 2011 ur o. ---"'"•••-- ' 4'. •-•%• . .4. \k ?, -.„, NNiiglai ‘10 / lil ., ! , ` ;1- �`? • ' -4 LEGEND ' K • , ; g �:,, Q Noise Model Receiver IIIIII iy■j`, �• • . .4• '` nl� ` •„ - r • _ .' - '-� Mapbook Grid Cell f d .J eve "x Fp r,1' \ •P.w ;4.•I \\\ _ Highways • . ) 4: v. \AI c` 1'44 J $ v?t .. \ . ' L`, r �. North • , �, t •• I j `°"`'$t `era4 = - 0 250 500 1 , i , : ' , ), -a le = 't` T ' q� � i Feet ` it � ' - :• { , ! _ . ..�.' f - - ew • i sr i t r 1 7 ] Y I� il tii �' _ . wit � ' i. .• • t. tro r. • {L.. tt - I • _ fl . ... p, • . • lr . . *OW , . 0 tin fli*-4 . Mg - -ILL I • .te r 6 l- -^• - "J, -..w-.•••. 4. v _ _,r ` ^•✓17,7:" - : w •-••••• . 1 CI, I I _v. _ . 1 jar ag! . • I - ., • i ' " .' , _ ` . . . .. I . r o-r f I �. ••r -:�,� I • �G�� :' P • • �'� `c.. . '. : w-. IA II if I ' . 0 1 if i f . 111 �• i _ - I C S itt:44,0 • 1-1 14 y 1 jb�.Lir-i - - ' - .fir llYr '1 Jill': 1a��" rr '_1'r_'Z'il' ' ' - I' r . , - . -r-11, I ur i L , .. . ,• R�• b 1 GAL 7 t` l !•h7 1 I:: • _ I ,• iG I ' aIll __ s: it , i; i t,r r / - '! T I t ', ; 1 I . r16 , a� • :; � _ _ ` t Y Grid Cell BT 3 t___ 4Ir • Final EIS - August 2011 (I v -`'�. - 1 5 1 rr.bIj•. • .n~�'f F r 1/4-}� ( f- r. '. •. • rt.. _ _ t 1.P, 1 1 1 ;Ildi � ' k '350 'i , `,.1 pit _,,• � ' ' � �` [ - I:_4 • ?-• A I ti 3Q ti a - It` LEGEND - a , . �, IA ' . .� Q Noise Model Receiver 0 / �: I- I- a �: afit e r ,N _� . P�' r �. . '' i.�� `` s Mapbook Grid Cell r ' C 1 r .t 41.1„ , 1. Highways • ..`, tia I • 1 — r moo - 1.. _� _ �- , 1 1 -Pr 'yP /� *;;,•-•14,,, r � ..171_'JS■�11 I ,:.mit'', '• . — _ North yr— j • �:�. ; -s;�: I� -` �� ,_ I ' „ 0 250 500 •..'M ".� C.,..` 1 1 a11.!.it q :, � ' ___ . •.,, . —'I , INIII 1 reel ..- pa. .�. -p 111 i �A�; • .-., ...• � t ••'•.+• �,n�' - t • i 4 T•J.'� ttri Y�. y .J tete NJ 1 ■ .•r, .t1 :;..—`.. .7•w =,L.` ^'X+a` 0 y. ZZ[- _ ��`f. '. i t -� ______ _•u"_` t+j. " It �'17I ' e ° .11s *,, � •` c 44 . 4 I � u % • ° ° 11 r 0` 'e3� -F tlt i,1 • III ! . .� � , �`.• 7 d ' .t Arr . f ) L$4 a :k: I e"5 - s3,3 _ a • y b ,r ii _ st I .._. *1 111 ' ,tt.. / ` -�.� I .- .•n., 'f a tt ,1V- J i_ -.L.:_-. . _ E„, '.i. ,. ii04.‘ ,L'Il. • ,c, 1 , ' • • -- ilk C?.".2711 1 --. • f N t f /1Ill • ' J•. � , i. /e .f 1�1; ;ter-i\i . -- ■j 4• •`' l tit ti,_� IL ' +.,.,,.. why•I r'� I ♦ 1 ,, ® �'� Y • _ J. ie) .�• +�� 1, •V/ I J��i11 w �.. \ boty- r ; e• 1.g3 •» x] 711- � ti 4 •:4 jE. �r .M1� �. i- r -1,F ; '�151� . . V• ••3 •1 `I.� ' • � l 2:1)-a • -1 � _.ie • I Jr.. - a-i „ I, -t 1.• 4\k I - !! .l. r �,.. . - 64.4e 2, Juana no. a it Mai: R3'' ik _ / . -�j as,a, 1 -rte.. '`,. *r16 • �•. V �► tiw.l• I 1)1 5:11. + Ll_r>.a� ` r i /f Y �,j1 1 .1 �1,�t y , I - E .I h� , fr 1 LO � t � *a263 1A 1 a 2.. ...L. _1 Y.. • i...- _:Jill G ` C r-� /rill . 1 1 _r � . .. ' - D _ 1- �r 'sue a -t 3 •-• - •-/ ■ • _ _ - -.. .. . . 1 .. sir I . . ---.0— ...„ —) . • A Y� \ .�.-�331g3 ,' I: , .. - ..ityrr.. , ! •, y1 t • - . � .8. tit - •1 . . • 1 \', 1. w . L� ,a y7 1. p ! Io. .- - i _. •\` MI X33' r. 13 \ , r_.�' .J'w -O ti r �`� r-7.4-1111 • ri.. • 4,7,0 t,„#- it «l I lil . , 1 L Ill - - _ . _- -�`�; — r _ . ,f ; . . �� Grid Cell BU 3 T. f. ��r. �1 1 j F�!j1 ?t . i t. i A a 1� jilkik- ``.Iseat ii �a ' - 'f+>r 1 E33c ` �3�3 63;?.\' r . s-ITT' rr < . Final EIS - August 2011 sii • -11 ,f'a !1 via,r �r O• I .•35•-,1 . Y. •!A •l -1 0-1-7 -ik` 1 LEGEND r- • � . % !� �' • ., �6: - •% 361 a ei it f► •• ` - 1 I •.• fr. • ,- �.. Q Noise Model Receiver Ill � ti. ! �. ' _; • : 7.1 �� ai. � � Mapbook Grid Cell 4. • : . . 35•; 1 •r 4 •� _-ill LA r w Highways-kap. lb, -a ‘i - T'-�� is • � ,f.. "!7� ?. - rte' -{• aa�� -I ii tri• ii- Nit•�� t1 �, 9 . 1 1•'t - , Ci'� �' %� `�` 41% t- Cl k4- - Y ,• Nitt4Q *7 IN �i 't , �.` �4! . "� 4` 4!. mot-. ' ? �, North Palk., r ,1.(• ,• • • • • 4� • :3' s 4 .. • 0 250 500 .Li ii .r , _th �≥s, .' '.,► Feet il"-4.,14sti ' . ,, ' Nt' .14iii tr. ...„-S. ' ••• • f: ha. : 4 in— 41'.: A . ,. ki . •, Al v 6g . Otis•' , �, w '� ..r � `'� L• nbJ�_� 1 • 1� • 1 ' \*. •NO •,�•• ,,le3 004, • ., ua . `Ares, S.4 �4# ! • -0- • ... -,. . t . TU 3 di ie. \ -•:A ..• _ ,L,,, r.,,-. . -- ... , m. ,,,b. ,.- , . ; ri . , _A-ts,‘., ... _. • in. �l . . ,_ 4 318 ` / +raj: p_ • • 1 �: • r:•,,, . ,y7 Jt� ' `fir ` lar • , ' Ill it •a _ 0 . oN. 3•.• ` vv {` ��f/��Ph_ • • ` .• • -,Q;--f-fix'•- ml,a L. r 1- " .' 'T . .--- ' • . • • \, , • ,Pirr •& 7"-__ ��, ( w .... ..... :ARC p4 111 ' �- �f,� t 2,e:.., ,. ... t:—._ ,4. . ,, , 1 i ‘i Ir to . . 1 ,1 -L//// 1 I r l _ 1H. r . ri a , , 0 Ilk j •• A 1 i �` t a -•-.. . '1 i . i V. • - - _ • .: • 1'. l.:: �:- ,; Grid Cell BV_3 N G• *II . SA,, ..41.- ; ! lel -b III*ili . - I . 1 Final EIS - August 2011 . r J !`� .:, f I. ! '_. ; _'1,•.1' ' Ir-- = LEGEND 0 •�� \� �'� ® � �_! e ` _ i, } O Noise Model Receiver . . • is-; ' ef\ '` et < 5hys t • T - Mapbook Grid Cell I✓It t' :ten +s`r� s , . i .,a-. `•` r 1 Highways et tit '. t 'v/ .13- N. 1 , 1 • 'r 1„ 1 .>; #h ..a .44. �.-. �j ' �.. �_ _ /� •. _ ,� �' ..�, .ii North•► < ��/1 ,-.'>e ' ' ,Ak2 ,�,1 ,,. 0 250 500 P .tz • `, -4i 7 . •• L, h k. . 44, ..-.!, '_�:�'>„ `� Feet Air let "tom • / - .> *-1—cot • ily . . 4 ,,f i ! ®; ... ` , ., .�'• Sak 1K i I I ii,-..... ,\‘.. ' 40\ silb-' -II( • •\ - 4. . );..‘ss ... ] • I fir. r .. .• Ay2 ' •.. 1 .. � .-\\ `gr. '• IS \. : I Cat ". , 1 rn '� •t h Jam. �� . • 1 1 1- '\ a .� 1 e r I Mall '• t i ti l c�J.•• • i .it; , , I Aar I lir 1 _ •� X• 1;)1.. '• / •!'� J L_1 r - ', 5 111 ri711:,... ./.' G,P3 ;+ � 7 / I t. 6. / ,, , . 77:51/.. :.,. ] S- . /2 ••••• ' 46. ' ,'' .rte. ;r • r e � •r • ` AA5 1 '''.• 11).,•''..A. 1 < Cj _ • { vv ``tom • - / {• ift• i ( -.,. , ., • _ la 4 ( •' r'' - - -. e 1 %' 1 • • r f • Y• • i . 4 4 r \ r �1 l 1r its - .i' • _ - CiA ' , ir IMP 4•4 •••• \ • _ i / f:-. .,„ . ...., .... . . , ,•:, , I ' 4 •1/4 /- .46. 11.97•Top• -t• -c- .�r .. : a- _- Grid Cell BW 3 Xi t I; Final EIS - August 2011 91- t-- „,„3/4.„„ ,. ...._ , . .. re i �� _,� ;' F,: - Y� �' - _ 1 2] LEGEND " Jussii l` ill N r , - r. _ = O Noise Model Receiver 'i N •I ,II � Mapbook Grid Cell , �;��►/ ' ' '�"' , ! Highways lif I r� ��(,,r:. I I r rr y y.{ ■ J •�.J ( _,-- .'U , •�� IP 1* JI VIN , • ar , , . .� , North I' ` 4. ;fa,e°`N8 � "- i _ _. 0 250 500 VD le 4._ ------i...i 1 I I Feet 5�l�l5. -1( � �. • ti y.F' mil, .. 1 " .y 1 � . � . ya 411 Ws j \ Ili 111 • I . ,1/41 1f tz > �'. • 4 ..11 ` I I / i • i 1 1 ... - .. I. I. � r it , , f , __, 1! : ijz Ay' I. t '! iR`�` 0-' ,r , L.,-; IL, it ,illW 'air. . --rya '4. i i , 4 • r •k n. ..... i • , re , • 1. cri I\l\kile •••• .-+ LIB �_-1 ' ! ••IL/gr. r......... 1..1:F 41 (A, — , t -•:. �N,ri r•• !I\ .4 ,.. ii, ;• - f -,. i I k •Pileil..elie 7,A 4 I . I . 4 r a ' s 1. Q r` , masa. MI - .,--•ter.a.>raz3 r---�� _• � ' 1 - 1 - �: 1 •R -_ • I/ 'y :t°t ,S' _ -3 1 , 1 4,4 rte-; , t.. I Cr I\ - c 2 L M , 'f4R��' �a L N E. 4 et • A• 4 .�� !;a +t is _ �;,: i .I { X56' ._4+ 4. 4 It; rt_ , r ,4 Alti 'kin % LL—, `\14; • , II ) ti iii .. • . . ,ific .4%,-- , -sr-51 Cr 1- -1---",---,.., Na. I Illi- -.I t-' ILI% __. 1 4 * .' If,. 0. :yeti:\ t6 ,c, . "" ,,ti * �,� ,,� lir _� •l t a t+y%./ ,�.tik t am 4. Grid Cell BX3 III 1, s • 1 — —rr-- !"�-x_11 I .1 �r1 • �r ~ Final EIS - August 2011 0 Iir • ~-- ., .,�" r •- .� 1411 ,r-437-,, r '�.,� \-.• is .f r , , „ - - t_�1t-�`�� 4., ,� ' ie3gA I g5 i, • �. LEGEND • •. . , ca.` S' ' •`' Noise Model Receiver kg r o tL : t f•r ` ti ' Mapok Grid Cell i . .s:,lb _ • - -- A ' i ;' . Highways-* I . [et ' . ..,,,„ ri, „To i is. . . dre , oh 1 cr 17- Lio .1g1 •dr:i ir. . IlirIE,..;- i 9 '!� r IN - 41 -f°. VI riki ' '1 \ 4 , North • cse ki a ,' �.�„PeACP - �• : o w-. ' It • ' / s. .-,-(- 1A- ' v': •. ``t : ;� t- �- •.' tdi A • . di 1 i f*' 0 250 500 0,k • 4, q, 4, 4,. ,A. r. spa, SR_ •_ H," T. ' Feet it f , to1-�... • ./ • nr ;1 y J • •4 lit iy t �e • 4. r • , _i . . • - -, y3 ry t! -. �•.• .�•wilk-..• •sp.r1 t.• � r-�t, i • w la 14 j i p 7 •\‘......- /`Jr \ GeV It . . / / t .A - ,�• • ' . ••• . 1 'L.� `r [� it 111(121(.. . >A'', 'y 'g * 1 .�'�. ' •,- .� , 30 is - ,- I SrRTT rTT Y-T -7 -.. 777 \ 4i• i • �.,(. . . e , i a ,, ll� dit; iii �� ,� \\.:ti `s '!fir a t 4, = �,9 cede' CCC • \C , '" i , i , ' ,...1 .4• .fir �'� :r • ,- -, '�,• `,'� 1? Y \1 1C i..•i { ;A • iiii• sijittlip 1 I tleniiiiiii.r, .2..,.. . ._.. _ ...,, 1- \.„ria . . _ . ,,,,,,,,,, . I obi, _ -,...,. 44 q;(7•1,,, gl-4, ' . ill_ :4441.‘ ...I' 6.c'a • t!,,ts. ... iiiiii.Threft.1 ::-. l'e: """ lik 1 61111111.11 [Li .• :,,r '� �. ` 1" �' ,i ,� X11. . 1�, tom- t r, iC .' -s ;_: • 4L' Jet*0-� - : �.- : • t: ‘6 .. :4:pitii, r . rki p • • • it. 4,, Aiii • •;,: 4 I _ . I.- 470:: kin -}r- k I - - 1 •. I . •. 4:4 . e t 1We"VIII it. r r i - • ii ... - • • '`, l T y ' ' 7fin a ari . \ ` 1 -.1 . . I,j %a _ ' 7 -�F ti — { ' Mat /ter • aLc.:4 ,....2 .. ...4 ' L ,.. 1 - 11%1 tif !(= "gla ear.2. 1 1 iit -7- „ .4, .2 -Ai - • i I i ill . Mt, • , ' A '` Grid Cell BY 3 ar-iF F • , ' - I•, 'II V;,.., :' NI I( I . E:. 1 ti t r',4.. •,t' :j - 1I :I - ,..; •L.........1......—A. '�� a ' ` "a It, Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • B001 66 76 79 80 80 80 B002 66 67 71 72 72 71 B003 66 69 71 71 71 71 6004 66 64 67 66 65 65 8005 66 64 67 66 66 66 6006 66 68 70 72 72 72 B007 66 70 72 75 75 75 B008 66 67 69 69 67 68 6013 66 69 71 68 67 68 B014 66 73 75 75 76 74 B015 66 75 77 77 77 76 B016 66 76 78 77 77 77 B017 66 75 77 77 77 76 6018 66 75 76 76 76 75 B019 66 75 77 77 77 76 B020 66 74 76 76 76 75 B021 66 73 75 75 75 74 B022 66 72 74 74 74 73 B023 66 66 68 69 69 68 B024 66 66 68 68 69 68 6025 66 66 68 69 69 68 B026 66 66 68 68 69 68 B027 66 66 68 69 69 68 6028 66 67 68 69 69 68 6029 66 67 69 69 70 69 • 6030 66 67 69 70 70 69 B031 66 66 68 68 69 68 B032 66 67 68 69 69 68 6033 66 70 72 73 73 72 6034 66 75 77 76 76 76 B035 66 75 77 76 76 76 B036 66 75 76 76 76 75 B037 66 73 74 75 74 74 B038 66 70 72 73 72 72 B039 66 72 74 75 74 74 6040 66 75 77 76 76 76 B041 66 70 72 73 73 72 8042 66 67 68 69 70 69 B043 66 66 68 69 69 69 6044 66 67 69 71 71 70 6045 66 75 77 76 76 76 6046 66 75 76 76 76 75 6047 66 72 73 74 74 74 B048 66 70 71 72 72 72 B049 66 75 77 76 76 75 B050 66 72 73 74 74 74 B051 66 70 71 72 73 72 B052 66 75 77 75 76 75 B053 66 66 67 68 69 68 B054 66 67 68 70 70 69 8055 66 73 74 74 75 74 • 1 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) • Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative B056 66 71 72 73 74 72 B057 66 69 70 71 73 71 B058 66 69 70 71 72 71 B059 66 73 75 75 75 75 B060 66 74 75 76 76 75 B061 66 74 76 76 76 76 B062 66 73 75 75 76 75 B063 66 69 71 72 72 72 B064 66 65 67 67 68 68 B065 66 72 74 75 75 74 B066 66 70 72 72 72 72 B067 66 72 74 73 74 73 B068 66 72 74 73 73 73 B069 66 67 68 68 69 68 B070 66 66 68 68 68 68 B071 66 66 68 68 68 68 B072 66 73 74 73 73 73 B073 66 74 75 73 73 73 B074 66 66 68 68 68 68 B075 66 67 68 68 69 69 B076 66 68 69 69 70 70 B077 66 74 76 73 72 73 B078 66 72 74 72 71 72 B079 66 67 69 70 69 70 • B080 66 68 69 70 69 70 B081 66 67 69 69 69 69 B082 66 67 69 69 69 70 B083 66 78 80 Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed B084 66 70 72 Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed B085 66 71 72 Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed B086 66 66 69 68 67 69 B087 66 69 71 76 75 73 B089 66 64 66 71 71 69 B090 66 74 76 76 78 78 B091 66 71 73 70 70 70 B092 66 73 74 76 75 75 B093 66 66 69 71 70 69 B095 66 74 77 70 69 69 B096 66 73 76 77 76 77 B097 66 77 78 Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed B098 66 67 71 78 77 79 B099 66 71 72 73 72 73 8101 66 66 68 68 68 68 B102 66 69 71 70 70 70 B103 66 74 76 75 75 75 B104 66 71 72 73 72 73 B105 66 71 73 74 73 74 B107 66 71 70 70 68 69 B108 66 73 75 76 75 76 B109 66 70 72 72 70 71 • B110 66 68 71 71 71 71 2 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • 6111 66 77 79 79 79 79 B112 66 75 78 78 77 78 B113 66 68 71 71 71 71 B114 66 67 71 71 70 71 B115 66 65 68 68 68 69 B116 66 72 76 76 75 75 B117 66 69 75 75 75 75 6118 66 68 70 72 71 71 6119 66 73 75 77 76 76 6120 66 69 72 73 72 72 B121 66 67 70 72 72 71 B123 66 65 67 67 68 68 B124 66 64 66 66 68 67 B125 66 67 69 69 71 69 B126 66 70 71 71 69 70 B127 66 62 66 69 69 68 B128 66 67 69 72 72 71 6129 66 74 75 77 77 77 6130 66 74 76 77 77 77 B131 66 74 76 77 77 77 6132 66 77 79 79 79 79 B133 66 75 77 77 77 77 B134 66 69 74 74 76 73 6135 66 68 71 71 74 72 6136 66 66 69 69 73 68 • B137 66 64 68 68 72 70 B236 66 66 71 71 71 70 6237 66 64 62 67 69 67 B239 66 67 69 72 73 72 B241 66 61 63 66 65 66 B242 66 60 61 63 62 64 B243 66 57 58 61 60 61 B244 66 55 57 58 57 58 6245 66 63 64 67 66 65 B246 66 59 60 63 62 62 6249 66 66 68 68 70 69 B250 66 67 69 71 70 70 6252 66 72 75 75 78 77 B255 66 60 63 65 65 66 B261 66 61 65 64 64 65 B267 66 64 67 65 64 62 B270 66 66 69 67 67 66 B285 66 54 57 60 59 60 B286 66 51 55 56 56 56 B287 66 52 55 57 57 58 B288 66 50 53 56 55 56 6292 66 66 70 70 70 70 8294 66 61 64 64 64 64 6295 66 59 60 62 63 62 B296 66 59 60 65 65 65 8300 66 63 64 64 65 64 • 3 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) • Receiver NAG Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative B301 66 55 57 57 58 57 B302 66 65 66 66 66 66 B303 66 54 55 55 56 55 B304 66 54 56 56 56 56 6305 66 64 64 64 65 64 B306 66 65 66 66 67 66 B307 66 66 67 67 68 68 B308 66 66 67 67 68 67 B309 66 58 58 58 58 58 B310 66 61 62 62 62 62 B311 66 58 59 59 60 59 B312 66 54 55 55 56 56 B313 66 54 55 55 55 55 B314 66 58 59 59 60 59 B315 66 58 59 59 60 59 B316 66 57 58 58 57 57 B317 66 58 59 59 62 60 B318 66 69 70 70 73 72 B319 66 71 71 71 74 74 B320 66 75 75 75 76 76 B321 66 65 65 65 68 67 B322 66 61 61 61 64 63 B323 66 61 62 62 64 63 B324 66 64 65 65 67 66 • B325 66 63 63 63 65 64 B326 66 60 61 61 62 61 B327 66 60 60 60 61 61 B328 66 64 64 64 66 65 B329 66 61 62 62 63 62 B330 66 64 64 64 65 65 B331 66 60 60 60 62 61 B332 66 59 60 60 62 61 B333 66 76 77 77 78 78 B334 66 67 68 68 71 68 B335 66 71 71 71 73 71 B336 66 66 66 66 65 65 B337 66 63 63 63 65 62 B338 66 61 61 61 63 61 B339 66 65 63 63 65 64 B340 66 63 61 61 63 62 B341 66 61 60 60 61 61 B342 66 63 66 66 68 67 B343 66 63 66 66 68 67 B344 66 61 64 64 65 65 B345 66 61 64 64 65 65 8346 66 66 69 69 70 70 B347 66 60 63 63 65 64 B348 66 56 58 58 60 59 B349 66 62 65 65 66 66 B350 66 58 60 60 61 61 • B351 66 59 62 62 63 63 4 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • 8352 66 68 69 69 69 69 B353 66 63 64 64 65 64 8354 66 60 61 61 61 61 B355 66 61 62 62 61 61 8356 66 64 64 64 65 63 B357 66 66 66 66 67 67 8358 66 63 64 64 64 64 8359 66 59 59 59 60 60 B360 66 59 59 59 60 59 8361 66 58 58 58 58 58 B362 66 67 68 68 68 68 B363 66 63 63 63 64 64 B364 66 60 60 60 60 59 8365 66 66 66 66 67 67 B366 66 62 63 63 64 63 B367 66 58 59 59 60 59 B368 66 66 66 66 67 67 B369 66 61 62 62 64 63 B370 66 59 59 59 61 60 B371 66 69 69 69 70 70 B372 66 58 59 59 59 60 B373 66 62 63 63 63 63 8374 66 65 66 66 66 66 B375 66 59 60 60 60 60 B376 66 57 57 57 58 58 • B377 66 64 65 65 66 65 B378 66 57 58 58 58 58 B379 66 59 60 60 61 60 B380 66 60 62 62 62 62 B381 66 61 64 64 64 64 B382 66 64 65 65 65 66 B383 66 62 63 63 64 64 8384 66 62 63 63 64 63 B385 66 59 60 60 61 61 8386 66 71 72 72 75 73 8387 66 61 61 61 64 63 B388 66 62 64 64 65 65 B389 66 64 65 65 67 66 B390 66 68 69 69 70 69 B391 66 63 65 65 65 65 B392 66 58 60 60 60 60 B393 66 56 58 58 58 58 B394 66 58 59 59 59 58 8395 66 61 62 62 62 62 B396 66 69 70 70 71 70 8397 66 64 65 65 65 65 8398 66 57 58 58 58 57 B399 66 59 61 61 61 61 8400 66 55 57 57 57 56 B401 66 61 62 62 62 62 B402 66 66 67 67 67 67 • 5 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) • Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative B403 66 63 64 64 66 65 B404 66 55 56 56 57 56 8405 66 55 56 56 57 56 B406 66 65 66 66 65 65 8407 66 59 61 61 61 60 8408 66 68 70 70 72 71 8409 66 59 61 61 61 60 B410 66 64 66 66 66 65 B411 66 60 61 61 62 61 B412 66 57 58 58 59 58 B413 66 63 64 64 65 64 B424 66 61 60 60 61 61 B430 66 70 72 72 74 74 B432 66 60 66 66 66 66 B444 66 61 61 61 61 62 8448 66 61 62 62 63 62 B449 66 65 66 66 67 67 B450 66 63 64 64 64 63 8455 66 68 70 70 72 71 B458 66 69 70 70 73 72 B459 66 62 63 63 64 63 B460 66 65 66 66 67 64 B461 66 59 60 60 61 58 B462 66 60 61 61 63 61 • B463 66 62 64 64 63 63 B464 66 63 64 64 64 63 B465 66 65 65 65 70 65 B466 66 63 63 63 64 64 B467 66 65 66 66 66 66 B468 66 65 66 66 67 66 B469 66 62 62 62 63 61 B470 66 63 66 66 68 67 B471 66 63 64 64 64 63 B472 66 67 68 68 69 67 8473 66 67 68 68 68 68 B502 66 57 59 64 64 64 B503 66 54 56 57 56 57 B504 66 56 58 58 58 59 8510 66 67 71 Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed 8600 66 60 61 66 65 65 B601 66 61 63 65 64 65 8604 66 65 67 69 71 69 B605 66 61 63 63 66 64 B607 66 64 65 65 66 64 B608 66 73 72 77 77 78 8611 66 64 65 68 67 68 B612 66 70 72 75 75 76 8618 66 58 60 62 62 63 8620 66 70 74 70 70 64 8624 66 60 61 67 67 66 • B625 66 60 57 59 58 59 6 of 13 Final EIS-August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • B626 66 59 60 62 62 62 B627 66 64 66 69 70 69 B628 66 64 65 70 70 69 B629 66 63 65 69 70 69 B633 66 62 66 66 66 66 B647 66 62 64 67 66 65 B652 66 65 68 68 69 68 B653 66 62 64 64 66 65 B657 66 62 64 64 66 65 B658 66 63 67 67 70 68 B661 66 67 66 66 70 68 B662 66 64 65 65 66 66 B663 66 65 66 66 66 66 B665 66 63 65 65 65 65 BFEISSH1_100 66 59 62 62 62 63 BFEISSH1_104 66 64 65 66 66 66 BFEISSHI_105 66 61 63 64 64 64 BFEISSHI_106 66 62 64 65 65 65 BFEISSHI_107 66 57 60 60 60 60 BFEISSHI_108 66 57 59 60 60 60 BFEISSH1_109 66 65 67 69 69 68 BFEISSHI_110 66 63 65 65 65 65 BFEISSH1_50 66 61 63 64 64 65 BFEISSHI_51 66 60 62 63 63 64 BFEISSH1_53 66 70 73 73 73 73 • BFEISSH1_55 66 63 66 67 67 66 BFEISSHI_56 66 64 66 68 68 66 BFEISSH1_57 66 61 63 65 65 64 BFEISSH1_58 66 62 64 66 66 65 BFEISSH1_59 66 63 65 65 65 65 BFEISSH160 66 62 64 63 63 64 BFEISSHI 61 66 62 64 63 63 63 BFEISSH1_62 66 61 63 62 62 62 BFEISSHI_63 66 63 65 65 65 65 BFEISSH1_64 66 63 65 64 64 64 BFEISSH1_65 66 71 73 74 74 74 BFEISSH1_66 66 64 66 68 68 67 BFEISSH1_67 66 61 64 65 65 64 BFEISSHI_68 66 60 63 64 64 63 BFEISSH1_69 66 58 61 62 62 61 BFEISSH1_70 66 71 73 74 74 73 BFEISSHI 71 66 61 63 64 64 63 BFEISSH1_72 66 73 75 76 76 75 BFEISSHI_73 66 73 75 76 76 75 BFEISSH1_74 66 73 76 77 77 76 BFEISSH1_75 66 57 59 60 60 59 BFEISSHI 76 66 71 73 74 74 73 BFE1SSH1_77 66 68 70 71 71 70 BFEISSH1_79 66 73 75 76 76 76 BFEISSH1_80 66 71 73 74 74 73 BFEISSH1_81 66 67 69 71 71 70 • 7 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) • Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative BFEISSH1_83 66 63 65 66 66 65 BFEISSH1_87 66 73 76 76 76 77 BFEISSH1_91 66 67 69 69 69 70 BFEISSH1_92 66 63 65 65 65 66 BFEISSH1_93 66 62 64 65 65 65 BFEISSH1_94 66 59 61 62 62 63 BFEISSH1_95 66 62 64 64 64 65 BFEISSH1_96 66 68 69 70 70 70 BFEISSH1_97 66 62 65 66 66 66 BFEISSH1_98 66 62 64 65 65 65 BFEISSH1_99 66 64 66 67 67 67 C009 71 68 71 75 74 74 O010 71 69 72 73 74 72 C011 71 64 68 70 70 70 C088 71 69 73 75 75 77 C138 71 71 74 71 71 73 C139 71 71 74 71 71 71 C140 71 77 79 78 77 78 C141 71 77 80 81 81 81 C142 71 72 75 76 76 76 C143 71 76 78 79 79 79 C144 71 72 75 77 77 77 O145 71 72 74 76 77 76 C146 71 69 72 73 73 73 • O147 71 72 74 76 76 76 O148 71 68 70 72 72 72 C149 71 74 77 78 77 77 C150 71 68 70 72 72 72 C154 71 73 76 76 76 77 C155 71 71 73 80 79 80 C156 71 69 71 Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed C157 71 77 79 78 78 78 C158 71 73 75 74 74 74 C159 71 74 75 75 75 75 C160 71 75 77 76 76 76 O161 71 72 74 74 74 74 C162 71 74 75 76 77 78 C163 71 75 76 80 81 81 C164 71 75 76 73 73 71 C165 71 75 76 73 73 72 C166 71 75 76 73 72 74 C167 71 75 75 76 76 77 O168 71 73 75 78 78 77 C169 71 65 69 74 73 72 C170 71 73 74 72 71 72 O171 71 77 78 77 76 77 C172 71 77 78 78 74 77 C173 71 75 76 76 75 76 C174 71 74 76 76 76 76 C175 71 69 70 74 74 73 • C176 71 69 71 73 72 70 8of13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • C177 71 72 74 74 75 75 C178 71 73 75 75 75 76 C179 71 74 76 70 69 70 C180 71 74 75 77 76 77 C181 71 73 75 76 76 77 C182 71 74 75 77 76 77 C183 71 73 75 77 76 76 C184 71 72 73 76 75 76 C185 71 71 73 76 75 76 C186 71 72 75 78 77 78 C187 71 73 79 79 78 79 C188 71 72 74 74 74 73 C189 71 74 78 78 78 78 C190 71 72 76 76 75 76 C191 71 72 76 77 76 76 C192 71 72 76 76 76 76 C193 71 74 77 77 77 77 C194 71 75 78 78 78 78 C195 71 76 79 79 79 79 C196 71 74 77 77 76 77 C197 71 74 77 77 77 77 C198 71 72 76 76 75 75 C199 71 74 77 77 77 77 C200 71 73 75 75 75 75 C201 71 71 74 73 73 74 • C202 71 68 70 71 70 71 C203 71 74 76 75 75 75 C204 71 72 74 74 74 74 C205 71 73 75 75 75 75 C206 71 74 76 76 75 76 C207 71 75 77 77 77 77 O208 71 74 76 76 76 76 C209 71 71 76 76 75 76 C210 71 75 77 78 78 77 C211 71 75 77 78 78 77 O212 71 75 78 79 78 78 O214 71 70 73 74 73 73 O215 71 70 73 74 74 73 C216 71 70 73 74 73 73 C217 71 71 73 74 73 73 O218 71 71 74 75 74 74 C219 71 69 71 71 72 71 C220 71 71 73 73 73 73 C221 71 62 65 67 66 67 C222 71 73 74 Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed C223 71 74 78 78 78 78 C224 71 75 78 78 80 79 C225 71 69 72 74 72 74 C226 71 72 72 75 74 75 C227 71 71 72 74 73 74 O229 71 64 64 66 65 65 • 9 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) • Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative C230 71 72 74 76 75 74 O231 71 69 69 70 69 68 C232 71 73 69 69 73 72 C233 71 70 73 73 74 74 C234 71 68 70 70 73 72 C235 71 66 70 70 72 71 C238 71 67 68 66 66 66 C240 71 64 66 67 66 67 C247 71 73 75 76 76 75 C248 71 70 72 72 75 73 C251 71 74 75 75 75 75 C253 71 65 69 68 67 68 C254 71 66 70 70 69 70 C256 71 63 67 67 67 68 C257 71 63 67 67 67 67 C258 71 65 69 67 66 67 C259 71 64 67 65 64 65 C260 71 64 69 67 67 67 C262 71 67 71 70 71 72 C263 71 63 69 66 66 69 C264 71 61 66 64 63 67 C265 71 64 67 67 67 67 C266 71 62 65 64 64 65 C268 71 66 68 67 67 67 • C269 71 68 72 68 68 66 C271 71 69 71 68 68 68 C272 71 67 67 69 68 69 C273 71 63 63 63 63 63 C274 71 61 62 63 62 63 C275 71 66 67 69 69 70 C276 71 66 70 70 70 70 C277 71 67 71 70 69 70 C278 71 71 75 75 75 74 C279 71 64 66 67 66 66 C280 71 64 67 67 67 67 C289 71 57 60 62 61 63 C290 71 56 60 64 64 65 C291 71 57 60 64 64 65 C297 71 63 64 71 72 71 C298 71 64 65 70 70 70 C299 71 63 64 68 69 68 C414 71 64 66 66 67 66 C415 71 69 70 70 73 72 C416 71 64 65 65 68 66 C417 71 70 70 70 71 70 C418 71 64 65 65 67 66 C419 71 63 64 64 67 64 C420 71 77 77 77 79 78 C421 71 70 71 71 72 71 C422 71 70 71 71 71 71 • C423 71 73 74 74 74 74 10 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • O425 71 65 65 65 66 66 C426 71 76 80 80 81 81 C427 71 75 78 78 79 79 C428 71 66 70 70 74 72 O429 71 67 70 70 74 73 C431 71 67 69 69 72 71 O433 71 73 74 74 76 75 C434 71 65 65 65 68 67 C435 71 71 76 76 77 77 O436 71 64 65 65 68 67 C437 71 65 68 68 68 68 C438 71 69 75 75 76 76 O439 71 73 74 74 75 75 C440 71 65 65 65 67 67 O441 71 69 70 70 69 70 C442 71 70 70 70 69 69 O443 71 67 68 68 70 70 C445 71 64 66 66 66 66 C446 71 64 65 65 67 66 O447 71 65 65 65 67 67 O451 71 69 70 70 73 72 C452 71 62 63 63 65 64 C453 71 72 74 74 75 75 O454 71 62 64 64 66 65 O456 71 58 60 60 60 60 • C457 71 71 72 72 70 70 C474 71 70 71 71 72 72 C500 71 63 64 70 70 70 C501 71 60 66 68 67 68 C505 71 63 64 66 66 66 C506 71 63 66 70 71 69 C507 71 68 71 67 67 65 C508 71 67 70 68 68 60 O509 71 66 69 66 66 66 C602 71 68 71 72 72 71 C603 71 64 66 66 65 66 C606 71 61 64 63 64 63 C609 71 71 72 73 72 74 C610 71 72 73 77 77 78 C613 71 65 66 68 68 69 C614 71 68 69 70 70 71 C615 71 67 69 70 69 70 C616 71 65 66 69 68 69 O617 71 67 69 68 68 69 O619 71 73 74 69 68 68 C621 71 65 68 69 69 60 C622 71 69 72 68 68 60 O623 71 56 58 58 58 58 O630 71 61 62 67 68 67 O631 71 67 69 73 73 73 C632 71 72 73 75 74 75 • 11 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) • Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative C634 71 73 77 77 75 77 C635 71 62 66 66 65 66 C636 71 70 74 74 72 74 C637 71 70 73 73 72 72 C638 71 67 70 70 70 70 C639 71 71 74 74 73 74 C640 71 70 73 73 72 73 C641 71 66 69 70 69 70 C642 71 64 66 66 66 66 C643 71 69 71 71 71 72 C644 71 62 66 66 66 67 C645 71 75 77 78 78 77 C646 71 73 75 76 76 75 O648 71 66 68 70 69 68 C649 71 68 70 72 71 71 C650 71 65 67 67 69 68 C651 71 68 70 70 70 70 C654 71 64 66 66 69 67 C655 71 67 70 70 73 70 C656 71 70 73 73 76 74 C659 71 66 69 69 72 71 O660 71 73 74 74 76 76 C664 71 74 75 75 76 76 CFEISSH1_101 71 68 70 70 70 70 • CFEISSH1_102 71 67 69 69 69 69 CFEISSH1_103 71 66 68 69 69 69 CFEISSH1_52 71 69 72 73 73 73 CFEISSH1_54 71 67 69 69 69 69 CFEISSH1_78 71 71 74 75 75 74 CFEISSH1_82 71 73 75 76 76 75 CFEISSH1_84 71 72 74 75 75 74 CFEISSH1_85 71 58 62 63 63 63 CFEISSH1_86 71 70 73 74 74 74 CFEISSH1_88 71 65 68 69 69 70 CFEISSH1_89 71 67 70 70 70 70 CFEISSH1_90 71 72 75 75 75 75 SH1_B0 66 68 71 70 70 71 SH1_B1 66 70 72 72 72 72 SH1_B10 66 59 62 61 61 63 SH1_B11 66 71 74 74 74 74 SH1_B12 66 64 66 67 67 68 SH1_B13 66 59 62 63 63 63 SH1_B14 66 56 59 60 60 59 SH1_B15 66 55 57 59 59 59 SH1_B16 66 64 66 67 67 68 SH1_B17 66 60 63 64 64 64 SH1_B18 66 59 62 63 63 63 SH1_B2 66 71 74 74 74 74 SH1_B21 71 73 76 76 76 76 SH1_B27 66 61 66 65 65 65 • SH1_B28 66 67 69 70 70 71 12 of 13 Final EIS -August 2011 North 1-25 FEIS TNM Modeling Results (dBA) Receiver NAC Existing No Action Package A Package B Preferred Alternative • SH1_B29 66 60 63 64 64 65 SH1_B3 66 72 75 74 74 74 SH1_B30 66 58 61 62 62 63 SH1_B31 66 73 76 75 75 76 SH1_B32 66 60 63 63 63 64 SH1_B4 66 63 66 66 66 66 SH1_B5 66 65 68 68 68 68 SH1_B6 66 65 68 68 68 68 SH1_B7 66 59 61 62 62 62 SH1_B8 66 60 62 63 63 64 SH1_B9 66 59 62 62 62 63 SH1_C19 71 62 64 65 65 66 SH1_C20 71 65 67 68 68 68 SH1_C22 71 64 66 66 66 66 SH1_C23 71 59 63 62 62 63 SH1_C24 71 57 60 60 60 61 SH1_C25 71 57 60 60 60 61 SH1_C33 71 59 62 62 62 63 SH1_C34 71 70 73 73 73 73 SH1_C35 71 60 62 63 63 64 • • 13 of 13 AI 'id 1 ' lit 0 ;,,espr 4 •r• 30)UNTALSr' L.p . c _ r-,, ist 4 Ii. : ;N.. ... • d Ps %.* 4, 4:4 lac—Ip di 1 •Map Index , ' ��1,• _ � r1 � � �,t 4;4[�"1'�� "1 "y f' • • ^ .- L . (ea fret ;• ♦ �l t I ! • % r •,.-.. ;.. I • t t Y 1 { r, Li 1:1 , ,, l • t rte,,.. f r . 1 : r , 14 .it 1 _ i'seam • e . taltillill If i ,1 $ Or , .,, r ,•frist, ....,, ♦ ..P N . I 1 I I 4 I V C 3 4 e ' a , �. ilithile .1 ;' ' . i l• i 1 lils + a r 1 .4 •at • <t FV, I " {-• it: �1 I trip ,., f_392i i © •rSilci ir- - x l -me' 4 ^ f c . illaii: . • C.; I ' . lo I • .S. 'ill 0•4 • - "‘• eft >II i r-t . .$ I• - I t J. i efry • ••-• I 0 ea AI' . til-. la• 0 . t •t ! ' iti is y„ ,w 1° ; C1 !.• T^ 4 _. . .•.tip .ii . I I° '^' . •' .11•4 1. A, a +1, 1 . N.' wr4 '1 1rf •> > '• �!�.�f . i it 'lam r.S mas . ! ,1 > • _ _ r� •4I glil It t - ,I . • . , +•Ls ir _ !uctii- 66 --•••••-•iiitiseedoeffs " L‘ e * lisis#6119kkitli W ..it -it .-21._.fit-tv; 4 , -,a*,i.., , . mai 1 4' i t t r I i,.., 4 tit ... , it te .4... "iiiiiiejlit • i • • • • / lir el ..; ••14 ' .1 Sei 1 / r 1 . . _ lela :i itr„r-- r_ 4 - I eMt Sti ' {� • jj}, tt 22 R' 1 ' TM ). 7: A Ii) 1i r — — ' 4 ' • A h 43/4 -.: hip I--ar . !I . , I, -. , 1"-`, "i • , . .,4.iiiit . 4 't :' 1 ' - .I - -71 I- Lift -t i ..:111'..,: 11" 9 9.41911•0 1119 _ ��.-- a TIP - i s•.'' ice• at 4.11 . .„. . . 1 . _ z..h . _, • 1 It 4 .4 W ..6.• j 1 • - �• 4 .♦ V jl1q 11 iiihili .I•• •, ,•_ '. '• ` t 4't ` i` Jt'A, m 1 y A- Yi. 11 '►.1� 1�1 ll,J.r% 1 Legend "` .. it'---44 . . ... ,. . ,. M Br. r Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts -, I ' - I � ;a � , ' ‘C. /• ;ire, 0 Fri CommuterRail Noise Impactsbee lir Z,_a� i :Iii 2. ,/�' t . Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint idt." t t .r.,�1tit 34 �. . .ill • r i Ink' Map A0/221201pent: (Append D.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 2 of 61 ICI IS I IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative ice-i :v • I 1 1 al.et % ('j2.T4Ht2' 1 - •'_- - • , 7•%vck, • ..4 - rine S:1!' „,. . . . . � ! iJ4FTL'F .EAM ft rt r . IS . Ir.: � I—. 4 ,wiAtithis_ . g& , 'it ..a. % t - I Ali "Pry.* :- -'j `i"�� ' �'� . ,4 .k_l • C •`_ a p. • ill • a , i A. �; Map Index F I , • tesi lt, / al WI\ 1 II Ct. I • , am \ I A^a Veit -1% • . - - — ` ' ` L 71 _ :___ � l • 1 _.. M i I: 1 C toi Es h- :ft a lit s' s, . rt 11 • 1 '• • ... . 1 . • ♦ t tit S. I . t ' rates-•r _ �.�.! , • •It_g_ Di �lII i, c t . . .rN 34 I «• ' w-t " tti . .ti. 'tits . -- Oil•i El • . li I c a � -fel __ . . q • . "e-'"4 lira) • r i • ll - - i ' P • ) Ai ,isit mil ` t wI Do , w • • e ' .4 41° -, . , \ It'tillik,L. " •• - to ~i " r �f��+lQ33 lalMhl*I �' -.... r' c i - -.� AST it w(„ C..alit .),P• . e ..- • II ate:, "' .a ) ' I �.�—f .c,:t i -`' - _•�.�. 1 i V • a r y { 1, li ! -J , . • P .� i� 1R • t•w4 4 3 . le. i 0•,,L,::.,,elrO t. „ , . ... ....., ..... . I • It N iidt wItisc1/4 I: a' +l • . .A .1 , I _ .F. w. �. �, + ' r s • _ • it � e � � !1 1 •yam • . i - _It Legend j . ` . •,-: rf• Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ! ,.•,, ' * litilb :+ ' et . .• _t 3r. Fri Commuter Rail Noise Impacts i'1E y ,� n • ifr, •- �`'i'l' • -,w - r)i ' Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint h�aat, tu* �`.ii , it lif *�c ' ; I: •':' it. • i+}; -s} :� ►: • Map Document (Appendix D.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 3 of 61 Alk 10/22/2010 1.1_1.. 1 iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative • i 1 0D. 1 . . S t • lir �,1 ga • t r•�:�.1 -It II ] .. r -'�'11 �. is t i yy�� 1 ?/t7`l31.•�3 -- _'�_ �_ ..i�� - - Jr (� -..ter= i I` q1•I . � ' 1 ..�,ai.... •_ r 0 -- le 4 is '' • 4 n.•' CI°ilit il • 0 , 4_Os'Map Index ;,, ., '�. " ` . . le . '�� r,.�• _ 'A • 0 " . Ota II "xi . I Ili ! rry'j .'. r I ad Wei • 1 } 1�. .♦ �'• , by , . -!1!.� {r. ,�(��`.•-, t _ + it!• 1 tit- , 4• 41 4. ;i1* -7, lill tIt' ' 4 - . r!al eel I # 4:111117. >4 I. 392 • • if < Y� !- 1 Nvt . .sr ab r _tik JO k IOW% r . It y .14 ice. • CI %L • ••• —R� W N 1 r ® •.r i % • �` ` • � .Cr. 002III'0 44 1j .� - s ' �►. ..+_ .. I,r 'a ir' 'FI lee,60 , etie • a, j, 4 ) i iia." el--, ..... 0 i ,i a lg ‘.... 1 1'.:�' r ,. w T 1 asj Y , .� . 1� - �s • � pit IL 40Sv 7 t ( 1 /' •4 e ', ,. _' I 1 .t1- 1. .4 � '• ♦ 1-L• - • , Li • 32 33 • :II IQOM� el i 4ri irdn *Itialikkolle? r t ikAiel. "1.1—.: *iiij.crt -= ' * ;3/4' _ °Wit 15 ' IL . e.,.. i . • rl ,1 •lit _ f: 4 %1T ' \ lir �' 6f Li►. W _ • r7 r t 5 •I- ^ ifra 0. fel4 r act r isms • t . r , , tf �` 1 • is � . ` • • 1 *mg ' i �a • 23 2 a . 1, i• I Villi 11 ` • .Pc: , ,, - , _ , _ . ..- 4 9ifra ‘.I I a , SI .-‹ , . 1 \ *I MP fa At a* ^ • 5 : „ *4 olk ..,.., ill 4 i , • it ot � . P • - Is. eq r —_ Y'• J, It 1 . 0 .• _ _ t rl �: , y + , f1 tit rue' wit ,� , ' , el sirii I �� i . I . - PP . a %• �i ,1 i e •I ' , r • !I, r t ii. •; '• .;r '. ,S • if • -4., r Legend � ;- ti. tt , tea. I -,.: j , 't• _ - _ " • r J•? Illf Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts j ' - •• r - r 4.1 Commuter Rail Noise Impacts . roll .. --� �' "RA IllPreferred Alternative Rail Footprint ; ,' i' ' ' �,i, -, IN _ 41.\\\ ,'� , 1 Map 0/22/2010ent (Appendix o.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 5 of 61 V V I Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative w ,y T +,, - T T�_ lb .,aI 1� 'mini '.J , ,rl, 11 • �___ ;• ` `.T j • 44.4. .1 .., to '\\: T 1 hN �' , ,�yy'�.. l 1 1v • 1 -rY .1 . • , •1 ' •a v 4 l Si:t.It , tileill-;14".-1 ef A . 0 t . ; Ii ' 7�'y1` 1='p I • % ;� r r• . . _siiiit:. lit , L.46...4" Map Index ! Jill Mr .4 • ........"........- jir.4 3 71 _ ' rte • : w-yc. ad: ! 't 1 - 14 - Y 1 '. _ i t '0-.,1 -- - . ' ,��' , - .- • lerr ,� ...• N. ~ e 1 , - � , � T �_!_?- _ '1:1E. a de 4.� L1, . r J • aI • . .' 4 \ / li 1 1 . 4 VV • 1- W 'Y " I Irk , '1 ti, ri• • f 4,1 'V1 ... .ill a.DI � • a r wii d Lei!' "s 4 1 / • i i �j4 . . ql:1 392 • k - i JJ 4144 �w� Itll �., • c t. 1 yr. f_ .tal • % �i •f,•J t e,f•T , II 1 �_t - I \ ,r 1 sup �1rI . 34 T • y� : '. ��,uqyyy1 • d ' _I !` • t'elig i 1 L zip ; ' f ...,ti iii‘ `7! J C Ji•.�1_T /,rr ` 1 t‘ llom rat IT ak '.1, TA; r •- 46,t , 'ti'f� , ♦ \' ` , - •1 \ :' ± 1 TCM" 1�.I 56.1 ,,v i it\ e t 3 • i ; it" • • Fiiiiih.V 1 a• i' LI _ s 4,. 0 •W - . II l - `4-i ' -44 1 r_ _ . . . __ _ 9 " I 1 yrt 9- or\ .4 111 al iii --41) '-• rir , ` • V ,, - •las - $ 1 1 i SS _ T, i' "It 1lI, • 'alt ' 1 4�Y �� n • � 1s�1"h Q 4 M0k • hp' `R'1 art _ _,. 4. - ° ��rrr�� - ". so o a: i�. ."y . C •Z.rsry `hr 1 . It kl It • 41r ri ' ' = rot :i 4 .„,,, . •4‘) , tttir„It".a IN • es .ship; -- r , ti a, ." . 1 ' y . .� .,•` , . ` a� la j'• f. � __ 1: - lir 1t • 1 `,� a 4+ -� • f 1 1 - ►-. �- J- �4.i - ' ♦ a.•.:. 4 i �' , _ A ,T, Nip •1 i ; , I ', .� . 4 _ • 1, , ,•', at ` "T �`' lJ r1 r , � rail - tire 1 L 1 "� 'r I ',Jr'le Ill{1 ITt •l &44. t, C 'j �. • "Alba, 11 iRV l t 40 41., 'IP; It , 4 • lea ,, .' , , ,c K idt,' _ r r r .I 1.'t Pe • • r n yet r U �t I '* , iiir • ,...4I4 . • •._ -r nre. e. I _1 • f f 'a ' jinn. ip �� 4: 44% j , 4. Ie >+ Legend 'T.j` • ;�'1" �- � w ,w Plank, vfl•, , • N. - Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts r•.•- 4441 + • ! t •I •rci Commuter Rail Noise Impacts - J I 77.� l . • -1s2- ii R� • iii_t le �4;: 1 1 Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint �r' r •�• ... . • .a. . IFFrigri rld 4 t '�r „ .. , • Map Document: (Appendixomxd) Rail Noise Impacts Page 6 of 61 AL 10/22/2010to 0 300 600 I V Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative Tr, • ,-- _�. '' 1 41.A__v - t• -r _I ' " ' rS •. ,. ' 44 at ••• ., . �• T , f'' ! y - �� 1 'sew- .t . �> - t t Y� '.. tAk,Lig., • • • .- . ha, . H I . ,, •. , .. .... it __,..... i. 4, I 411$ 0 � ,,� ill I _t__,,,, . 4.. ., ,, / �� I c . =' . -4 It ' , -'-y J'.�•' _ „ , AI ....., ._,e • ` is i -_• • ; 1 : i I __ i - . , ' *it 4 .Ina 4;4, .... hi t ri Map Index 4 ! . ; , j ;. , II/ . : .: • ;.,. . ea = I-M—OS tri11vmai - a. Pr— y I . 1— • VII t ° sartr Wt, • 3! - , ( a I ' 1 112, IIC2Hir. Z. 'II 1r* ii".4t- . -' ' a .0 Cr ,. � r.. �= Carl • ,lid 1.w R It k7;;; •r, . I P. W � -r ► - . � 4t 4 altar may' Ie • 1 .R . . . • ► 4 4. . %t 't t •i �- S a - . R, - !r- . ♦ � It II FA} z • li a IltRa (Pk ' .• 41b..." IF . f 14 till" 4• CI IPS] VI 1.,,,4 r _� 60 / ► _ r el, i % 2 • •r . . IIr .• .• v 4 • • h ois 7\ t w its - I t Prtir VO • r Jr. • . w-, • a y .., . " its ill 11 paiii •• r, - 1 ^a'F ' •� Jl ' -trr I . . F. ' 3- .1 - ,l - -34 -- L •j . i 41 f y� I - - 11 ID - x t it ii � m 4.w O • d (U r 1 ,. ' �J41 T' i.� cn , ` ,4 .. • PRMRE 8T + I -llii il. r rrtr �1 1 1H F"'Y - • tjAl t ' t i't ,, , h., I. * ,II ri —• 1— ; : a. -lit Villunii Legend j Illy Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ` • ~ , 1 . . ' �� . !Ili Fri Commuter Rail Noise Impactsil =0 ` �' \ Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint edit " . '� Sc- - i. Map A Document: (AppendixD.mxd) 0 300 600 10/22/2910 Rail Noise Impacts Page 7 of 61 `I II 1 IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative . ___ , . _ , . I , • . . . . . , _ ...• . .. _ . . . t 1 Map Index ;,_ ''" , 1 , • +1 la f 4 •r W M MTH!W!� • lit' • �. 1�t;J •' • 1.. I 5921Y K. • u _ N34 v w a ss kik _ it - . . ' . _J79.-:\AS bv 4 4. Illai a III / t :� t , 1t! -- — w... t _EA no.. Y e. om. _ .• 11 arts-' W • iamb IG 'Cal"-'�-.may • l ► 1 i—'v � 'Y Yi _ � � T 't 'I. In. Ab y. • - ' !Cr,. __ -- — ' W _..-. GI 17T'd ST i .--nrossaisiden".......... r.i- < 6 1 t i 4 @ IN • Legend r x., =is z ( ..• Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts _, • . rcl Commuter Rail Noise Impacts , Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint , iii x , a4 i •• 1� - a, _ Iii, _� i ALO/22/201pent (AppendixD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 12 of 61 Map ICI V I iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative • t 1 _/ 114. r t: iiship 0 : et bi, r ..\ 4 .. Map Index !dr,. :_ s ., • -. • t • 'IV: I. ', .__ - i ' " ifs► .t. - r l ` • � ' ` - ' ` kr r 4j• r+C • J 1u..-` �� . r A _ \c f. $ ,,, 1 sh, I a ['COT -t L1 Ilic I ' . 7 yi _4\-_1 r. _ e .. ,....1. 441 -1.0•15_ I , i :1 i s. ICI 't' r w ,n • N 94 ^ r 1 F'49L. /�1 - -fir.', +....10Priegriii;14-sc . . , . _ . ern" 1 iiii 1 ii, 50 b `` ; 1 _ it • .i..56 :: 1- •j7 56 >ei ‘r .4 :, Ns\ . 4 \ flaTypriecit pa imor_1.1;alip-Fp-atoll il,. 1 VIII L:S\ ‘,„- eirsiA: ,,,i, Nle\•.....N..\ \ ''.\\ i ,t4‘, ,--_, -� Ill i 31 �a}pl�N�lal�l"l�l�i : ti R ;M .. M F� , IS ir V (a o \ I it . IF:74 \ Gitc: " Are: 4 :114 A f.1( , ti . V 1;. at j 2YI , . ��a ,' I ! 4 •. 11 fi•j : t 1 1 1-41r- el -e f . t. A i s i. , A n 7 r', , 1 liktJI .`: r� • d t' • ' rall wj — s ris ■ 5 C Is, a A -r--N-1 �wT .1 ' - I� ��, ? " rte.ii? . 4),A,.sel:ii..• :- hilie A L iilla° • ' ) ' *71 47.k. L. ; . le it a.. . . -; to 1 , ,--- - 4, a . _ dive r 0 ft 4t i , 0 . . r \I,4%.l 'Ic e :rpier:....070. , ..itiLa .141i . . „,, ith, „it „hy . lb . _, ,,,fk Itrl I' dr- ae, 0 d ''.sites • N. j , • i 4 it 4 k cal t PI „,70ts r s-, ,„„..1 ,..,0 - .41, • 11 g , 14.)p . 4 , / Pf ‘k 1/40 4. i ^Ss, • , i ; ♦ iLe end ' • -4 �' i — � kg • = .tg � , \.K. ' frf 0 F4 � Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts * ..._it A ' e' hi e'' ' � L a ,r li _ 0 Fr-i Commuter Rail Noise Impacts — IL y Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint ,J` -; I �.�-y' n��yT'r�►"'t"�" Map .S.ent: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 0/2212010 Rail Noise Impacts Page 13 of 61 ICI V Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative y . I . n. t ! I ' li••� 4 Y _,I I II I 4 l• it i : �: _, .' iiii - _ _ • I Ill r 1 �j Jt f, .:c A \--, .b7a L } •rte 1S' 1`yq rC r i 1 j tit t. i7 A ri i litMap Index ,i 11 '; .AMID 61 yltrill 1 ',. . I. r f- i • a4 1 rs ,. �-4 . ; I. --.�r ' ' TTT '� i I'lift 1 IL • � °IIIf1f , •. tlr•L I• tN I •II, , . to ' r It . 7 i", el tak , II In 1 sibl -Ill " ; Tilt r----1.e.:r let rif [f ' .SP II P.17. v lirrarliiir 1:Far In:- 411 - i f I D OF --- itli I ii 12 it 11 34 1. y • * e s , '1. r . I 1 f - ipt.b I. at .1..... i \ 46. 44 itIYVGI , I •1. is tip♦ lik' 1%. I-5.414 .i 1 it Nib . I 21 SIP I tifint ii It 1 ` #;_--.i ` �� T- .li: 1 , r t • M 1. y- I I %IL-7' it iii„,.. -Art . 4-,, . , . ga t 1 vey . ,11 ,ir- CLiii. et 17 ‘444.7 kat i C :4141 tt\1 ,ter a` a 1 .. r / I� - cali l • T^I...... * i - (.141. iiiiiids.„2,4 • i - t 4114 II ilir Ai 11-rr. B ,e g I, .# ' ' 1 r �>iiv, ‹. ?i," - itas ti, _ 'fi ? 1. I• 1,7 , et �4 • -I IS s. I . E iok I' '''.* III, fin 0 if; ..r. ,,, a?, , ,,t, 4. • r p v: , r lI. am. . brit _ .! V. 1 Iliit T _ 4 . 1I ..% it -nil - } { , II r., . --em r ii f rii s 7" et -1 tor i 1 1pri el Cr repiitrViirt L S ' 4 I r $ r ' i i,i i T'�ill 1a }►.t`_. k— ,a; w Nit ...N Ms Legend ' ` IN- : t . 1 "Iii- . c. - it Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts r -n ki �' 1� rt rn Commuter Rail Noise Impacts i 1 , 4 �"'� 1 I � R � 1� 1 f r� k i M � . f :4... IIIII Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint t,,, 10/22/2010Map AL ent:(Appenthxamxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 14 of 61 `■iI `I i iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative V- 1ntil E - August 261 ..� :` ` -- - �► I It TT��,� '• 1 II j� .' _ r I 7qi1— s u w •••„- M vi - A/ -... , a '�l'��/, y fr • CIIII ip t�. (,.•� .>hYl\'4� ti1 0 / • G) ♦ ' l recornirtur-aff. ' w?yTH • — Y • - E WHIP. * fraTh ':' J. JOU r_....„ .! . . . , Map Index ,• . i = {; ittaeft — i f r . • •i_ _ ,-, 4 t . . , , ' '�• - ) 1111.x.A''''1.•,'l�• - ,•_• '• - R' - (.•-• .,,orowarr it rIsp _ r -•• �. . i v.„3: , ;it i \et 1 .... , I -- sw .--1..„3/4:_ ,. s • A . \ P-r.• t ' • •to • ,.. ...,,,_, ,��R'( , t, cf.` � I 392 i tH [l : i.: 1 • , . . .",,, . . ., - ,..ii. . 1. • 4 •\•• .4 ,,,,r rt341 i "e-.—___7_ , � � _ - 60 4 M f • • . 2 1 8 % I ai T1S= 1 .<6( ' P P' a ire � 1\\IIII billea I. r• - \.de 15. 11 la 4121 .7 , *a I"1 it a i II ili 1-7 - ,! v , ( . 4.10 imrMrl1-7r • � 1 — .4 ' • r • 1 52 '1 � E Illi.L\ al' 1 J1 , let'.c'i it F. r . r ) a lil • 'i.t.t I i ' j146k• • 'i I i 1 • II 1 Ii — li 1 1 'yew �� ' f Legend • -_ , , • 4 .,. ,4 , • Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts L , � - ' -ill. �� :J ti' is - wu . II rr-i Commuter Rail Noise Impacts � ., '�• !r— V Y t. ' •• al iii Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint '+ '�� ` - rgait _ (. al- 10/22/2010 L.► Map ent: (Append'aD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 15 of 61 V V i iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative ¢z a ah L ,1 it r• , j .. _� ' + .4 -, • 04 ..•- is � •Ji pm I„ ill ,f it 1 it. t., ; ) ` 1 , r�: 1 I' • ,� , L. ` _ �E � T Z Map Index , : id 4 )4,L • ,, ^ .Aid, ;", ` 4 r �� •`• . �' • ' Z lle14 �. 1 ii ::. ` D II y O.' i� - s •t� 4''� s • , de' ft- d• .. ^`. tom- lig4 ' • -A - art r : , -� •r, it athil Ilk_ fib- I t Pal et gip litat 46:1 = V. �� Vii I'lw ' ..', � •r" - r F � , _4 f"•� *. 1392 lens .• _ ..a1 1f• '� _�. • - '' f 4, 2.-.1 oil - 7 -4 - Ala i jejliAtr, .., Eli ter v SO �� A 11'r t_ 1) 'I - ' 1 via; ~ der, tc. w t. ,11a r • c: r -i# t I ,r , t. -t .....t., II - „ la . - 4 aa„. -J I i ; 4 r via 31 ilimm • 04. . '111" Ai . . ,,,t, _ e , • • iJfi1WCOM r •ti . r ‘ 1 iill • .. rif}, A + . . . .iy r Q ` • .E dal i— i __ I is •i • r -�� Ill NT�. . j , r ` , 6 '. w it . • 4 11d ~S` il• ' ' ! Aft . :caw _ 3�': •; . rd 52 _ i i•' IA" a ' � 1 it � •• ' - + � ��S IF �' • to iti , : '� 4N E , • s tM.. t r I PC__ _4 -• f • _ -i .I• r - fI r•I. ',• 1 . I► + e a ♦„ ------iii _ .. '�,. . .rtw.i•J igo• AilL r : tt r s S, r . 1 ► it Is1 } r s wx ti I s. S 4, ' - •„tiv‘iib‘ t. itt,, i I lima • lir` _ 4 4 .. ' I ? ofr .d-• r flit `wig 1� _ % , •_ 1 .�: % - Legend ` - . ; I. _ "` ` ; , Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ` a, T '• "• a. ,� * , ''� l ,� r7, iI -*--f I . M. •ti �� , 4 • • A) 4 ` ' I as � —' toif ri Commuter Rail Noise Impactsit . �'' ``' , . 1-7.4 • I II t -54.. ill Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint �. .. c , --zips �lrst _ L. 4r} •f • 7S i►�7�` �I , .^Map 0/22/2010 Document: (Appendix D.nixd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 16 of 61 SI 111 I Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative Illri -. NT -J II~ • I w • S a. 1__ r . •n 1 ii. N e, r' 4 ,,, a. • 0 lig • • LP • i so' L. W.' ii.A ., rit: 1 Ei .., Map Index _ • " i I' 41 liiiT I••• :rt. - aI •i -lie I — rim IA ,,,,, ,dll k' . *1 1 5, i m �_t_q-. r: 1 rI. iii r r r ;, , �.� ' E ST ' i 1 . I. , • l 1 I� �� if • � ' Imo. 4 Imil j •.. 9.„ ,.. • i _ e I iiir, ra El 392 "d d � . ■ �.I�" 11 3 .y `s 1, It - ` 1 it 13 j5e -'�— tS . r \ "� I' f₹ �C N _ � .-. ��• bii a a "fp v 4d, t •A •• - i ,frs- .-- . , St •i I ado.) i w ti .,r 'Ara' LIAO Ts radii • irk te" ill.*II i ''' 4.11/. ., ,:;1;0; _4, liv_s I • 4.' _ se •rat 4 bo • � � " Utz l�a� .. 3r1 , r r t z r :�y , a �r r� _ t t l,� - _ t t djld� " t I j.; } •i IP '+y _ .. ' ✓ 1 • it'll y vitro 1 . • r• T.‘ , r'l r .r , / # F _t A 0 i IS 1' a 31 rs; 41t IS i • I N \ I• � . IP t< ,. / /52i le;. ty ; -SP ity iN i„wil ‘C s 4)1 / 7/ ;k ' '' Illi ti yr t _ s •- J t�f. I i li • t _ -11 , v,�" • K ter- •- 1 / � � • [.. 1 ► :� "• -rats „ Y b r . ... • / • / Mi� tudiamegi / . yy• - .• / it 0.;.-! _ 41/ ' ``lb 1 ) { Legend , _ r . T- I Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts • Jf -TT.ese:friC--)L P I Commuter Rail Noise Impacts �• /4444 III Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint I ; - Map A Document: (AppendixD.rtixd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 17 of 61 0122/Otp ICI V Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative hossaia + _7 ,,4 �4 1 r rat �.�'3" 0 tit , ri n 1i ---4.2,,, a I : 1. li 4 / ...„.„7-1,r _. , , ,, . , HI Pity &ear,' . .) •Ma Index :, - � 21.1---2--- -... ' ' .••!T ' r r — _ sti rte.1, * 'l•Ky Ili w ."s • - j - id It ti I 41 t • • le, ,%. l , :i II 1 kW i 13 ir: 'Mt Id *V S ' J . ti: 1t , I w i . t2192! lit • r 1 a le _ It f , . [ °1 �. tqa1 •1 ' 1 . ` 1 ' 1 5C Ilk*4 i i :a — es 2-1 I. g i anfaaalliammalisass --rr — •14T ut' l --- T — .— _ �.. . DT i . - s �,... ��.�..T�.. i `• •wl I — — 1, . 4 . r w F .. 4 -31 ` t 41 ' ;•~pop ens* w it e apt. Ill �. •r - 16TH 01 F Z r� a II�iJi.lrl a 4 4 4 - - -- 0 I 1 1� • a i Y O 1.-r (��r r h - i r - ilk 1". le es i•Al re' ts ,C i '' via.., . _. , • ell ir i isS45), . t t . # - 4 I 111(i ;eV- I I./...) ' I( e r II r 7 a di_ TSAI 1e_ irli eirktirelig, sessz4 / ' ' 1 ' r,,,,. F W *% � ' 3 J' ar0 r � ', irsitaia. is ,. I I \ y .It rte - •ti, �`' / et • „.. / >; 1 lipl. t o • i :, ►, y� ? .rte 1J I wa : .f -i.41,. 7 ., _ Legend l w • w 'r .. Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ( t, 20 soft* . <i r Commuter Rail Noise Impacts +k•* it '� • •. ' . • / ' IS 1 n 114. .'1.. .'. Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint • Illn.ars 6ali r''_ .fir.`_ >, oMap 1012212010 oenl (AppendixD.mxd) p 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 18 of 61 `I imi i 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative l IL .' i ' al EIS August 2q 1i Ni • t 1 • . 4,_ _ ' . lik i ., r ,4r ft t-0 • da 1 t.This,;c . ti at I AI, ''4,4,". ;if -- '4: *Cr •1,1.4% k....? I • SFick I‘ , .. • _ __ IL', It „ Map Index Osielt0.2: te.. • w rail ��.J4 �` i. att 7 7 I< S - N -1 A , . �y 121 u La t / ../ \ 1 a D 392 ` ice, ,,i') t , �� _ M ti " . is - teed 14 *tit- k. 5c. II W S' " 1 / X11 r } a . • 1341 i' �' +g ii y I 1;."- . .' * Y r A 1 I 57 a k • : • JI.F1 II lL l -• .. .• per '- • - 1�_ •� •• '1i.•aV I ! . �.Ill SI SI 101/4 to In - II ""�� . 1 - W Grimy ROAD 16 I, tltl. o : ' : : i i I II ] IF NIS 52 1 1ji 1 rl ` 1 f till . • + 4881 r „ - 'r A�� -a r . p I SI nil N. - i 1 I a b. --ti 00 •-: 1 1-k•1 it Legend �: `.,, Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts Ill rn Commuter Rail Noise Impacts Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint A M h. 0/22/O10ent: (AppendixD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 19 of 61 ap ICI V Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative 9 ' 11 _ I "sal It 4 y elemomser • + f licill ,c Map Index ' . • ai r .0 0 rP 1 , It Or 1;;I:111,11 Mir -ilA le a. to rti �i.y ~ ' 1 I --- - . Is .4rat-441 Its Imp!! 1,:talli Dal .. ,a 04 is i Wile< _ I re il�I 1t%% tit. 1 g - . . a qp 4. IT ,„ -, . . . ii. P60 •3' c , CI" E/ -- il r--- I Z ~ til . " *• I a-.ii4 I ...41 •I,� • zr�III PE s, 4 T'n+ 414144 eJ7 . , i 4 r L J .s4 I. ••••• .4.-Yr. . E 4 rl� , craw a G guilt - - �•w� ie 14:4_ et _jr.„ - ii ii > I At. A 4L: t: giF. i r ; 74.-- --T. :7 . dial . % 44 I ill It. . i• ,,e ' ^ � I + ( �Sir /. . • a1 ilia* , ' , tom,berliie:7 all lest' ifral it ., it! 4 Legend a Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts " i .. . ., -Ii: r I Commuter Rail Noise Impacts 1'/:_ • ►� - ' i . • Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint t. , �• ' py� 00/22/20 0ent: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 20 of 61 V V I IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative I I a.' ! IS t • 1 r� r .I NO • , ... i . t e�__��1!111111 14 I ir 11 • • ' • India . Istmel- • ill: jpis - Map Index . _ _ ?:At; r L ..I � . , a• F 'Rc " • • 3 . I t Q i 14 • • •, - trr' � - i �.' S IF _• !Y` C N t ,rt�Iz • 41 ,�, - ,;3c9••• , r h 1 y -• r 11 a �'1 , c t' 41. ,‘,„ . .Ei ,.r It 1 - $ Ls..f 0 15 , �� b 60 Ir ii [ 1 tlf alk • ,1rin ..MOANt i i 1 • rrIII. • _ 1 i ek- .4 towl . Y q �• I � _ • l R, 6 0 32 34 IS I _ j 33 s ' %XC C«gip 1 : • j, v . 1 I 1 �' w 41 , 521 i•' _.I It - q 1' I i .70 ♦ _ ., If _ e • I 1,,,al ,. 'ell. JH � l it ei : CI ip r I . — — , i1/41 cis �.1 S Legend • : • --. .�. • . 117 ly • ACommuter Rail Vibration Impacts I j ' - fit 0 Commuter Rail Noise Impacts `` ' Radr '' Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint; lr' , . t cr."- • 1 ' 11, ' I Wad' '. •_. _ - _.lir Map Ak ent: (Appendix D.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 22 of 61 0f221201p I V I 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative 0 ,y r V M mot. S' s i . _& -. 1 r %`• . Map Index y � � % �� t- ! _ Air- V' ‘ • - - i = v. • yar 1.4 i L \ Oa 1 a , V I F _ _a ! ti *"t ' t '•y y, 1 • s • - • 1 -,..; fJ• t-M4 r - i r*. .t i w ikdi 34 e • P 'AVE ' II + if --!..— - t.: _ ), S. 4: -, ' i :gal 1 i i- 1: ., II:. , s__ _. . (177 il:..'iiii.!, I [ J i re . , . I , ,. II" • : , 'H tok i i • . 1- I ! , !CT7 It •�Y' f 1 a el ;� . w• jit. of , !, r . a t c1 •` , 6-% ° y. T I , � I m - '. •,, - Tir 1 r _ • . -- _• 1 �. ^! . ti Willi �• rte► .i 61 WC 'II - 41.' s , f •_524 , -'' + 1.0 f.,�yp-` ! - •,t�� . - •i II - . k- tb-1::: 11.: • 4" -,. -*AD.. ' Fr 'iet• , tit Y _• 1.%eke I i 4 : \ 4 . II ' -- - • , il ea..- "it-' — . sr* i . ..„ . L.- -I( i: ,,. ill.i 4 ,.._ . • a ..iseLL .i I Fri CI". . I:11 II iiii /4 t -I- : .1 . • . I ., 1 . - 1 , P.--:, , - 41 „„gii, . erlt.:f. . 1r . d t,, f . '4 C Jet .i, „.. ,,_ ft .-. , tr, „ , . 1 , , ft 11, r 4-- r, i ' '`• . a . jiii,41*.fig -raiz:, - a . .. ...a_ .. 1 tait4 .. ,. . f-, . r It -,..lip: r . ^l` L ': y } I ' 1 y,� .1 w _ , • .� re • i {� • I I - �.s F _ .._ .• . • - ,-.41C., r',' . ' „till 4 ` "fly rt;; -,�, TtJ t�vE linli. ric :ki ' Legend 4r. I I y •tiin76-4j i t 1 !r i - • �,_ • Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts % ( I'J ar pri Commuter Rail Noise Impacts .� rff -� • F.., , - i ' . " ' 4 '' ` �� Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint Ate; çiçtt . ---itil e p' k . t t • . 4. Map Document: (Appendix D.mxd) Page 23 of 61 ,o/2z/so,o 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts 9 V V I 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative lipittlittlii": 1- v , Z. en I EIS -11unfit ' c • r • ,Ir. % lif::, :el '111,":4:::.,*. :Co H%4-/- ),I., l ......14 4' S 1�.1: •„• f , . 1 r� '~ lie. .' ef,,, r .4 ' 't .• - . .4 �,, .r'ill IIICal 04 ' I ' I 1- _ or 1 IS sa. ) 4,t4,;, Map Indext , �.. '.. • ' i a f • . ;. 4 •It I ' `co,i` .:rP . Vii— t..ilif rrif,_ IL' :::-= A . - • '1- II r•it F____--- .4 r-- 1. t J. 1. S It iftry. 1 L. • ..r• - . is_this ,2 3-1L 1 t.:1, . ,, i ,„,,,:r . , i ..) . . . , ,. . . --, HAI e# 0.4 . , 6,1 3. . , si lim '- mll, II ! 34 ; r "II 1 .F . . 1 . . ..,- - a. , 'I r. • la" , IF t 1 , v ti 1 II' P. 3 r 4 * .r. , • I , , TIIe 41. Woe' ' al. .a. ........tam.—a. ' ip„,.., . , Ham_ 1 _1II �' ' 1'I riiCD = 1404 , ' i 4 1-,e IL _ . y - - . - 117 r l f r, •f a r. Ili' . 'i F a, ' , ,1 -r r• >t 0 �* l.'... -� �` 1 ' 34 iris Isvirl - a•. J • 's' '• r 4 r` _'- •- - • , • 01 r '0 35 dair iti 4 Ai i 1 ift- re.•1 • + r•ill SS t r It- r I , - in.f,a itr a.rt, as k fpT11 . ihs A I. y_ —^ m. '1. s.. - is, I - t . ,• ��,I .. ( -c- 91 I - .y 1i u t icev ' l *. kIN.,& 4' I ' . ..• % '''. . \ A ' ‘ ‘- i •:: . , . ,, ` t • t Legend .. - tr., ' Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts _, .,, ,, -', ' ii Commuter Rail Noise Impacts Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint - I 0122I201pent: (AppendixD.mxd) 0 300 600 A Map Rail Noise Impacts Page 24 of 61 IS S t IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative _ ••• .,,,,, Final EIS - August 2011 'i - --- -- - . ---•. 3 • ;IA/ 1". = - — w ______-, r-,►...- .:so _. _asp - ,t I i jill ii : .. .:1 , : . _ 0 i r . Map Index ,, 14 11.41 lit 1 famea........• : , A3s2 1 is to P;711 FIT v r r u •usai ` - r . ' r 'ma 'f so I o • �N _ - �; I iamand `_1 56 ' - - • I fi1 .; w17, `9 r /r • ,. h j 41 l r _ . _ I 66 0 0inW��rT"�new _� k` I ,AAA ° et - - 1 rrion I t I= ; , t wca ry - _ i ^�, 7,1.:::I- .l. iii 1.� - _ , ' ' ic �� _ _ �� ii 1 V 1 l� //I _ 4 jj1 - T F as Legend :hil II Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ;_ II Commuter Rail Noise Impacts `4► s •r , Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint •r• Ill 11.15 [ :S','__27�= �Map O/22DI01pent (AppendixD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 25 of 61 `■. V 1 iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative 'Final EIS - August 20411. . r . / _ : r 4 • ., r r Map Ma Index - : r _At ! -- _ • - . le ill ' 1 ' OA: as 1 'i 5 I. f�•l 1 M •� S- I I 392 r, fl v• ; I a •c t • A u t1 134 -IF . + • 1 i 1 t7 n _ • 4 _� I so t: _ t : . -r:, i • 561 r„ �. .. it A+T �.v r r•4. /N II . - .,..s,„I -:.7 I 1'' O 42 43 14 rim a s 1 ._ r-- a- ii t] ;•- .- ra 1 r rb .�J I •I1 r , •S •, _ • IF: - - ._��_...- r. 1 iii e ,1 �/ 1 • i Legend J •----.= • i Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts p. __ III F-1-1 Commuter Rail Noise Impacts Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint Map Document:(Appendix o. 0 300 600AL 10122/2010 Rail Noise Impacts Page 26 of 61 I■■I V I iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative i es , / , ..) ' 40 At Map Index .. . __. .__ — p I:. . r ..50. ' q. q 392 • , E V X142! r �G E COUNTY i ROAD 2 - �? S s r _ �� r i` a I a , . . iwg '. I • •:' It 3I Ire ptismo.cE , • . . 11 4 ' \ Iz r • u , i . 4 444 411 I. 1J a 4 0 1 3il 1 a x 1 sig Legend i Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts , , ./17' Fri Commuter Rail Noise Impacts - . .1 Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint . •Map A 0/22/01pent: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 27 of 61 `l V 1 iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative r' Ir Metof z f N , . . / r. 1 - ,. '� ' 0I II • •iy '.-mss t1r!4. a 7Cite': ! ►- .• 4 I ti-LJsjl• I.� ,�rA'. • nli l `� Map Index `` r" -- - 1 t i I= + ^ ' _ I 4 - .. , 392 _ .. i 12101 t�. 34 is /le* _. -' N . , 11 -f . -A 41 j �` _ V- - -- ------ - -- - - -- - -------------- - ----- -- ------- • -ea . • 5 . a i 4• , - • - ,..1 ! • y r , Legend 1 . / 4:_ r_ Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts 0 _ Commuter Rail Noise Impacts ,' 1 • Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint IIIIf . r . .. - :t y- .�[ .w, a , M oent: (Appendix D.mxd) 0 300 600 10122120 Rail Noise Impacts Page 28 of 61 S V I IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative 1 ' I Eg - T 4. ear No- . 0 • r . p . . 17-b s.. - 'Ina"' •. / r 1. 11 __� 4;1try l• , 1. Map Index .�'. . a� �'_ �__. ` .• • r /. . . �lisy 1 i� s • • • • In 0 u 15 34 v Nr 407i N 609 a a c` - a a V ,-,.:. A 0 ' sJ�� orb►, ��- , -<,. • • Il1`- i i - -.';- ID 51 N �' r1 .., ii . , , _= . ` .',, - 7 rs. _ F' .t • ..ti'i _ - 'I b,, ,� . • .... ,.. , . •4sp. , . • .. ,1 t' J . it ' .w ,k• , ��.. ill i li:l:lliIlliI\IIIIIIIIIIIto • � • •iftq L Legend �. �_ - ; f *jl, l Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts '+-- - Fri Commuter Rail Noise Impacts i Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint - la atii•I Map 10/22/2010 ent: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 29 of 61 Isl V I 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative i • I f ` i s }r ` Map Index ; ' tt , - 4 r , i I' 1, ; :. r, i . ! �... ,., _. : _ .. ,. . . . j , . .. .. :I . - 392 11 - .. - H . 14 r [34) - v • ® i • yRy, . 'hail it'll;„ I ' rig IIII la . ` i ' ! I 'Hi II I 1ri r.. I I ! F . 0 1 i V I j • I. • a , , I .Ill . -_ i, 4. ' grit . ' __ .. • , I - II illir 0 1 . ,. •:. i ( — _4, ,. ,.. , __ : _ • . ti s __ .,_ . . rip, _ _ 4 .,., . .. it . _ i . . .,,,, . , _, _s . • • -— i-- —- it : -way li x. rl as • I rF — , 1 , t . f_' L . 1 .,_ . t , . Legend i _ � e. g Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts i .` 4elf _ 1 ::7: :: : :;:tprint r fir :/f .4\so .it iii.,10, _a. .., .i , i A v. _z� 71fi��i. `Y r'�� • . � .a - � �. -.i Map A ent: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 0/22/O1p Rail Noise Impacts Page 32 of 61 Iii Imil I iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative •�f. a\ ®' + sa ,l .I . . u . • V titilla 4. t \k„,,e I • r: ,, ) ,--.„„ , . „•_ , , ,,,,, ,„,, .. Is r 113.: \<if/ 1 IL %., - - 41" . a . , ,, , "4„,.. N • , ",41 \.‘ , -, _.• • I — ' v Y Map Index _.� i . _ �► • ✓ %./!r047 Fes. n, a ( i •' _ a` Iy 1 r / % = --- --- •i 1 Y•I� � '' ~` 4' tat 1 t' s Lr14 la irk\ r Ia F'� 'h vI P • r •y ` r' • 1\ I ' iii ja•• 1-•p , lt q e , ��... __, . ,--r ., .... ,IYI _ a t /s a �- I . - _ -_ R7i 4 • I ii .1 . , 111.q�1 a _— a �� M . A,). in •g + r .._ -� ,. t-:..s r, 11 I '' r . r. t 144 J Y R� Tt. I rr.ill III al� p• 'P . - M rvy '- 1 b Ii I -il. I 4' j 4111 elk it'lIII a I A ,C ... -` • { ' 4 11 . .1 �' 1. M 34 . r w I ' I - It 1 •, \ _ 4; .1.4' . ..___ R. , azi , , . . F:6,7i„ .._,. its : 'sr!'" 311-1 - : . a. _ . _ ________ . _ A-c WS-) • II 'ASP> Talk IsH I . 4‘.-4illi+ ‘‘ \--- - RiF 44. all • I • • ..4.4,,--+C\Ncr it? NIB . . tr. %Le' t silt fa1�1�II4344 , •1 • I ."4""t I ill, 4•11 ,1 . w II too LMJIgamma • I� I 1 fl{ . tldtk f a .. is it_7r 1 { a^rf�~ ,,l •a. 1a a gi , y 1j1110 di f r r , r . _, r. } s: •7 -.lair\\ ` ` i gyp' ' ` I / •♦ . , . it _ _ 1 , - tiviirii• , • , , Ode S 17 r 4„.1 tl I. s t q • d r ) +t .41. 4t40 fr ( •to ( rail I t .4,, r A F 4 jr �'+� r j / t, \ a :Ns- I. _ fitilf 4. F y Legend , ; `fit �IL . �,�. '` • Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts r , , 4„,„ _7 % _ -ie.__ ‘alill . ill i(r Commuter Rail Noise Impacts ..II 1't ;;� l` -;- tu• r • -r •rr-1 , _4 \1/44 Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint _L,'�_ I b`•_ �. j ..: ., 1 . _ - - - __ . a __-- = ._fl022/201pMap A ent (Apperd'aD.mxd) p 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 33 of 61 ICI V I I Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative ir P ,i, .• :. �� . 201 '1} . ~ 1. '�. �• * t i .�..1. Ia— '.:i .? w . , `\ ilk— I ;1 ~' ir •c . .., 2. it a 4 ,iii . 0 t, iii ., ,_ :- ----1 k I \....4r>., _, ..,...;;_ ...„, iiirpri_ lc:*I,:it—i A .I_--as .., -:- \1 a FYI l j ' `� 1. �� `� 1 Jt . J v,II......... . ,. 11, . .:9,/: Ai T--; Fiil gb..°. A , Q:frii1iz � clips, I "r t alb Map Index ' • • ^ • '� �'`[____ r _ °I • 1 ti. - . 1 - 'io- I 1 ri #4" - -. . 41 :.: :. %\_ ligki;\. :\"N'AP; 1 •:it..Sk I t:„.: *It )... : '. :: j' T I 1 T I . e ..] .. Oki 4, sr :f. r • 1 , ,. t A. kal - ` • 4 -"L_ z 114IIIIMI 404- . _ Cal I 04\ 1 1 lilt N r , vaaw 60 . ' i' l _ - ' I NM , ikiltS Si ' bil• lif r ‘_..i.:. 1-. sir r e . 4 i I 0 • jrnpii. ci•IA is,le IS! 48 •••e• 411011' ' ii - 4: . ' it itifxdpktiair-^ si 10 E. ) i , I tilt 4, T,. . ri 4 t 1 t 0 i a - " • ... ,,a \an cis • 6: 11P' t tlii \lb.\ .44-4D VIII is. i — . , . ,-:,.•fra . --r _ I •44.1111.' mac a. 41 At IICIL Ir. cc , • • gals • Sal'ijilla ' Ili . -.1 ,,„ , , , ii-,.. 4i: ,.. .is . ,. th , ir,.. 0..r.,,,,, 1 ‘, __Jo A .:•"1-0;.„,%biligieet: .::.appt) ,Ir it.:c. 4.: • i rwir 1 ;;,. .4,4$49, a _ t : oil lit . .,.., ILA . • tti, -4- lett net .1bilr .< ,, •4 ta ...,_ *wir a:. , „ iv, ,),... . 4,,, IL. 1 116 II . ' :st re:" . it Ir. x - asii,4 fit V is• 4.S.IIIFFF""" 19" • ' l ,. 1 Q : uU .l cry ; t". ' 7 J. �.lijle.."7 it J 4 J'4 1 4, O'' - ter. _1 , Nr1yij I o---c i " , ' .. rir e _ r ate. ' � �1 _ I _ - la 1 • ra. 4. °4" " Fehr 4 • 4 The% .1 ii. Ili lie 44 1 a ' •il '. ' \ 4- "i i • •Igh 1 . 4,..r9 ,e41-- , . 1 I k • • - re r a yr r�T v3 •1 ; .1 'I• �L- ` 1, 4�` rt,.. A r ,.... ..... irA lk1 -, .. ` r it — '114 ak •/l I / 1. •.-. _ a q • . 4 -` xq • Legend - �, .. ',� G, i la ) - h • �• Commuter Rail Vibration Impactsli. i I 1 \ I , . , , 'bi __5:-.40.1., Ni., � " • . is - t- .. i . . I L{ `I, f rn Commuter Rail Noise Impacts . 4Jtt , :- ; ` 't .rA �` �t - * ' I • Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint ri ' f ,'` ` t Map 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 34 of 61 Iii V i tFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative Inc: a amisp, :is .... ," ' il.4. 'II ' Shill: ._ :1) . , 11 .\. rail is , :Ili. alre-. , ifr ......i. ,.. „. by-‘t 1 r . . 1 .......j. , . , A:tem . 9 1.;, .*--- . 6 I 1 3• ffim NM 1 g' ti 0 i II 2 up 1•40% a / .. . . a is , . f -.2_ ti A i .i .* ' MMap Index �`,_ fP:- La_ ,. ./ r1, -,,�� r 1 r- 1. II ,, A . tiort I ,.._ ......4,„sit, te ; Volt ) i s Ia- •' t... `� _� `� �` , _ . ' jai` j --. a ! • . ' ',-4 ,- .2_, . '• ,i , 4 46 k.... 392: is. a i 'd } • 1 . r I 14 , _ _ i, I, I . ta,, 't"- i'. 1 1,1 34 A a, ist I II , iii !! Z , ak2s _ ` Lr 1411'rft o el E ' leis 4 r Gi iiL! . Pti� a j • ,f t 1•X%.tire � • • 1 �' HI:\ • '` 4 tr.1. 1 • .�}w 'aril�.witf.,...., i 4: titim' : 11.4 :111:::::p.ivi.''citt.ill'i...11..11H-:,, ' _I: ::1 _,,..,,atztp.‘,4147•‘,....„ ..., is ft 4_IL • , , t IN 7. i .a _.:..t. ....-4-. es 1 1 iii. frys. M + 5 ,- , - r I r I fis,i4 -^-1 a- •1) 1 I. . am I I. _ _ ..4 weft % re Mr'3 Iiii: -1_ tiLt 4 J r ! h _ 1_ 1 t A . „` ! • ' " t, 1 . . 'a•-ei - aliqta ' . ' 4 cr . 'IF '1 . , al' .10 fib., I cr•' .r, a i k f - -t- la kigirni . I sit i a 0 • i i •. , . ... .. . . e_ :t ,, / _4Are , .. it: i ... , . , re _:,.... 4. cat. , , ... --4-1-- - -.,, 0. a s,- t:t .., L?f r • • �, . 41 .11 . . .i - • - • <7 4 t 1 , Legend s - e%;. : _or f f , �i ' talt .'it 1— r Ai ' ilftrigsgy Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts .' i . in t , . y 1, Commuter Rail Noise Impacts ' l � 1'"' , I - ;: A `. 'o Jp., = ` ; Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint •-' 4 , •• a�_ `'• ' ' f - 1 CAF•-4 .. .'z. . , . . . . -:• ` Sr =�,: i Map Document. (Appendix D.mxd) 0 Page�oi22�zoio 300 600Al. r, Rail Noise Impacts g 35 of 61 Si V i 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative '. a IS -August 201 0 _ . • .•. tGe at _ ! Map Index [ dI # so rte. 4 •• d e , ( all �� ;392 a1 il I^� It. Ifilal li 1 * ' �e iii 0 er F,0 11041— a "air - "'��"` 111 r !' • ,. . r- , 0010,:5 I ��l f 66 ,• • ,` Imo_ . se ;0.••••••4""°r.... ,/ i ..- 1 i I I • ,, -- lillit, • . , ) / 4 4,1r— _ 4-- • , , • i 11 / �j{` -, • ` -- . • _ 4 I S�•Otl Y.uyy. . • _ _ ,�•', 041 1 ' � r I 111 , gt • 521 l re er rat I _ 1 it 11 i i ii4t _40 ." . i r t: . , i? I - - ? r a4 2, i.` 4 _ '! i �.. i . r �.--I •r -a N 114- 1 „ -- •♦ . . • .` «.i .. -• • I t , , • �7•, r ':� 3 ~ -• r �CT, 1 sett i�7 r ^LI•♦ a 0 • F•--*r�I' ` :: ' pc --,s ` t A. ' F s� rills `. '' ti k t t. �I 1 ` E • - • 1 1. 7 f ti r r - ' • f1 Legend - ,� . lit ....e. • a Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts 1 ,� y ; Fr— Commuter Rail Noise Impacts `�t-'�< ' � r ii) 6 . . li Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint . ----- Map 10/22/2010ent: (Append'aD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 40 of 61 I■■f V I IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative tat4- tot - P . si ' MN .S. 111 .1 , u • � ;A ,• :. ..Ait • • ar ',. k Ar Map Index V, .;r =. I , k t i tidy s . iJ r,..-=-1 r} ..I _ 3• ! (..... n • f 4 R • . a . e.4 __ , to: ei I. 1 . r e sa a r Il • • ' lb - so ., • t i .• i 56 r s. /• I t ale« IIr • r q •. li i. 4: ,. • i • F . 4 . .„ �-! . •a ,... 1 D ' 1 4 Il I'Dir- - .,� r= r et iv i ' I • ' I1 e Legend 1111 Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts d • Fri Commuter Rail Noise Impacts I i ')' III � y Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint , f - ¢ Map Document: (Appendix D.mxd) Pa e 47 of 61 ,0/22!20,0 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts g S V I 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative , , , . ., d 0 _ '. --. , ,i 1 2 . A - , !, ,,, _ _ , . ,,, ,, i "'"Ni..' . A t F"-Z I f - "•rte. —..%Map Index ., , , ' ;,* :. • " ' + i ' . a 4 • .1 , d ' trar#1-‘1 ' iiii �" �` 1,� it - I, ii . ig% E_ . As ice . .. la! L3 d } i i ta;11:.. 1:1:44461 -:-- va. : . „,.. ...)_,4, ,,i, k _. kdri , • .. .. 1. 441. ; z, . . . lam. I.. _. 1 �• _ � � ..�• �•Ig "man . • -. et - 4 , . , , it fi0 � r � � Z,:q a .1 a !.., ,,. . .. , 4 -7,,,,- _, . ., . i • . , ‘a... - . . I 1 ' •3/4Nm%...,...tedit‘ re X4\44 • —1 hae) . ' AA A si 1 ` ►iII -3, q i 66 ,r \,-is xyAr li •f 1 71 ii hl°I4r�QImali61L11 - 1 , I( , Y . . , SS rt i...,,Z7Z .. t _ ��.,.�.... ��.. _- . ___.. ,..t- - - r, as- .. M _ 2J:- __ J: of . ,_-- 0 re .J . • ` Ft A..,.. et.. ,, . I a 4 i - . i • , '- e • if. ..,, ... . .joi„:: t, • . - _ - I IN4 - , 4\ \\*:.‘ '. . a Legend , S' N> \ \Ii -\,, ,... ::::: Rail ::: ::cts • %0 --, i Rail •Impacts • +� �n,�• : , '� ��\`-`� <'•; • 1.� Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint ., `� `ti, � � Map A 0�/0lpent: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 48 of 61 ICI V i 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative / Final El A ! ust 2011 `\ .O. -Agailliir - i t - " '`' '- ‘,„-, ', ;;, '‘.. .x d."`V, - # ' `. a . . k I - •- r. '" Map Index J. 1.111 t✓::'I r - . ,.• . cr. ---—._______ 392 n y a 'YI aef �- o ;� -.en:* L"1 • to . ii ri:11 r. 4 ria c 6 it , al 56, t 1 - . . y� !if - 31 is 'E • JI +. 3 assI�1��lal41Ml4Nl — ---- - -- ,. a i . Ilk , . ---61----°"11S. •1:1�k r i :i ree. t— - It \ 4 - II I lt R 3.- f1 . - -- _- -t. •• M1 4' Legend 3. 1 r Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts 401 1 .' Commuter Rail Noise Impacts , Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint i ' k Ill dr.'"� r Map Document: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 49 of 61 10/22/2010 S S I I Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative - ;')Ati - , , 1 S August 2 .- , Ill / ‘ f i • II — k at lt I 4 la Map Index pr I i v, 141 N i 1 i : = I lbk r a Q 392 11 1114 i 1il 3q FE - r .Tii ti iti 60ill :\ j- ` FE- •. N .. -- :4� , , ten' r- L ISM 4144.• 1! 66 _ :, "met J _ 33— fill ' WI vl i aaalslaimIQlaIM{lileI • .ac .. , z vil , ._ - _ ' __ ' ' YY r` ..� Ir.. .` -y.. — — _ ..wa_,- r- _ _.•53 52 F II i 7W )".---- .• .. . 4fr i 0000% . , - i- ad J d CI f: Legend r1. I . • Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ' ' _4$ r0 Commuter Rail Noise Impacts - ti Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint ai Map A ent: (Appendix D.mxd) 0 300 600 10/22/2010 Rail Noise Impacts Page 50 of 61 Imi V I IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative Final EIS - Augu i II• tr 1. e _j ti Ib n • .1 4.1-vI I ii.. 4 _ . • • . et* __ ,41,4' 64.ti t , b • { . • - , • R' : • la' . [ - • Map Index i y i, " • 1 'u' Y p —`q • =� •' . I1 ' 1 •` - 1ir`a !L i I lo II S-y ' 1 y,IJ 392 to _ * y #4 • 1-44-11 Ill . ill! InI1q • ' s, 'w�i h, QI ' r�Nt 4. (_ 1 - ii i rR• . `al .,it. s' 4 ' X r .1 J A I 34 i. ., 1 Gr3. r kir . -- , ..41. , lk. .,. , i. . ill 21 4 a 7 • , .3, . I� f144 • i Lai,pa: el t . .�� w ti r • - -*1. J� ^ , r . I l \ s__t-�__ in • %•e 'V :- • ' 66 •S . _avi ' �( _, I arre _. 1II,: iiiii _ _ _ _ ( 1r 11s t „ t J ' , . - . III isicso ocular.. _ ____ , se, . . i ,.%. . . 1a if it) IT:.* I ' ' f , I .f / I yr' J1 4.\......____c L IIII\r- Cl -, r -j _I1 I r .�„ •-' ii ♦ { .1)It,, _, '� ! _ f w ' lam• •r WI • It :4 ". :i ...., ID r ill4, .- 4. I M - 4 _ �,. . . . _ Illa Vi • 41s -- - .� _ ..' y r. _ Ty r—•' 7 1 At 'tie. . .....„...•••••••""'41... r 1 I A • „... 7;.i, ...i lift -j ... .. nii _ • le t Legend ;. ` Lac: * a Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts jj ' T _r ICommuter Rail Noise Impacts : .'- tilr - -; Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint • ; ' z--4,...„,,. i e1�N ,C ..+on,,. t .ens Map nt: (Append'aD.mxd) 0 300 600A.. Rail Noise Impacts Page 51 of 61 61 V I IFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative Final EIS - Au u t p' • _ - , • Map Index "It {, Tcr , JO i 0 ! 01 ` s_ ii J 1 tc .i l i • sr l .+ ri .: . • I i♦ �' Ill i 15 al all 35 t • . B *101331.0 41 42 O 44 1 11 ` 1 . ■ st— là Ir. .- t" X tff i • Irr -b- - .. • aa S i • . a .. _ n -_ a t I Legend 1. III Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts i• k Commuter Rail Noise Impacts A Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint 1‘ i Map A,0/22/2010 ent: (AppendixD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 53 of 61 I■■IIS i 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative IVA1 N ' \ , ra • 441v- . Map Index 3 a_. - ,vi i . it . i sli! .. si4 , - _ I , II, lilal ' , rail, Lg2 ..\\: ii\ .7,. st a _ r 71 t. . 4._ \\\ to 3-4 +� , , 1121 9921010 i.,,, ^I:sat - - ,. -It ' , li, ' f' °hi .1 iscn . ' a / --I/-_ :'�;+ - .., lam ( y r. r be T �. 34 1 , r4 _ III ` .. _ - ' Y• A. y t � � '�- mow. S Co. — -- w y� - �. j Li , . 1 - .�.. r - _. _ - . a , 4 4- s l ::su w-- }.• • - ♦ /+..� _ - - :e . n { t_.. ! _ Legend _'"'`x". �L v a►. -.1"‘: r Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts • -` Y L' ' V (-C Commuter Rail Noise Impacts ` ' ' Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint III ..... . . . . ._db 1 0/22/201pMap ent: (ApperxixD.mxd) 0 300 600A Rail Noise Impacts Page 54 of 61 `■l IS I iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative i. + August 2011 • , • • It si Map Index - r 4- - - r. • .13 U 92 , n I • T1N i 1b � M 34 1"J 2 60 � 59 ,II�YM a 1. jro Si - •'i:. . f 4.1;12: fir* N s ` 4.1;12: :I:: fir III 11 ° at i \ it - ,�. ,-• • 401 I ••', ^�. z , ;, i • .f 1 .ire--, M 52 ° Y ` { • ,r rl. *: I r :t Y I 11 I • ` I - l' d � • t �. . C F r r, . 111`•- E -• jY ♦r ,1 a. 7� �+F'��1 ter. ~` a r. tai ` ~`�� ~ �';tiS. p - Legend <<� ', _i z- :�`~ "->�ti �� Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts '' ..- •.=' '�.__ _- - '-,_ 0 rn Commuter Rail Noise Impacts Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint Map A ent: (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 0/22/2010 Rail Noise Impacts Page 56 of 61 I■■l V I iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative Final EIS - August 2011 riel . >. ..... 1 • Map Index 'r. �� ;.P �� , 1 ♦ ' illiftH� - ; .x.�ca ..r4. • . r ! S -,1/44‘ •IL ' 'i a ! .. 1 f 1 s. I 1 ,, ll 1 ' / L' rN1. ! ' \ 1/4 • re: r\ \. ~- ; , ,t �p k .a ! - •-' *� \ ff4 '% •�. '`• I• .'1 1 1 - `,�� Tj^K illi II „..- -L-- • ,A., 11 Sip .• s_T 392 ,- , • +� ti _ ^.itirII •- 177,, _ I . - q9 r - • 0 • t tz NN N. 51 kti-f i rr. ., oft ,� ( ►• , EE Qi. a •,if', . Ill 1 7 , I - • - • i� l ' f1"I*JQI«1N1 o _ i . I.1, , a • r` • .52 i Mt _ t )01P. 15 __� ♦ 3 ED' ; f . liillir: . ,. a . P , ' • I Legend _ Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ;' ri Commuter Rail Noise Impacts i `-- Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint . Ill Map A 10/22/2010ent: (AppendixD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 57 of 61 I■■I S I 1Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative F t 1 , vA-Tiii i I. •-c,„ .. : .--- -i - „A • ,„/ - . , t 1 . n , ,'..‘ 1 . JA.314 . 2"..,72t \ • t -al .27:, ' ..: • '. . r ,de .., 1. if t I J ii 11 ifie, C ` i r , 'f • C. ; fl r t Map Index .. ; , A� `- MO `• I. 4( ' 4. itt Irb 1414 i ill. ,.... . ., _ , . �} ' • ! oil i., U 1 "� • tto - � • %I i \is Ili w w r . -� �' y�a 1 „J. artni se- - i E i . . ideserp .".• irc .,.'aies"410*-- .....1/44 se -'site- rib,\• f ,. ,„ ,..-_—.► y t 5a _ 1r• ViI.c.. �, _1 '�" oileE a , ' w= - ...w• • It• ' S - - . es, n 41 1p#�— ....4.4%,...: o i ,� e+ IF II ff`` I A I j ` a `,0 Legend F , 3• Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts , , " , - . f (� Commuter Rail Noise Impacts • ill ri4r t Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint • 4+ t Map 0/22/201pent (AppendaD.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 58 of 61 S V Feet NORTH Preferred Alternative t 4 I /�t r - r { i,` t i` :, t . . 1 DP - tl Map Index f' , : I I,- . i• . , ,I.1•\. _, 6 at II.- . . _ y' r �� ' ^�=-¢n a e _- i Asa. _- - �_ .- 392; 1 , :; \'12 _ * 34 _ .II 's, v - - II ® , ` ) yla • N 60 i _ +�, r . 1 Iv ,at tv . i 7 I is v r ae p`�- w� • ... , I . ms : •. 's (asr ISI.14 I lele14414].1 I I O :_ i _ ...o - - •_ 5 �. - . i • ms . _ r • Y• .. ` ��, ' , 4• s� • .•' • 't, 4r� .• as r ri, Legend f �-��, A. • g -i ^ ; , _ _ r tliji . Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts ,, '�*• ti � tt - '� r r�`-el , ." ' .. •y psi r Commuter Rail Noise Impacts Y '* Preferred Alternative Rail Footprint "� ',~ . 4. . , I ii, 1 c . _ . ..,_ __,,,4 022/2010Map A ent: (Appendix D.mxd) 0 300 600 Rail Noise Impacts Page 61 of 61 V V I iFeet NORTH Preferred Alternative • N oRrx 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Wildlife Technical Report and Addendum • • • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO October 2008 • Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way Suite 600 Centennial,CO 80111 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 FHU Ref. 03-225 / 05-071 /05-143 / 07-190 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Regional Study Area and Project Area 2 Regulatory Framework 4 Regulatory Framework 5 Federal Endangered Species Act 5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 5 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 6 Executive Order 13186 6 Colorado State Statute 33 6 SB40 7 Fossil Creek Reservoir Arca Plan 7 CDOT Prairie Dog Policy 7 Methods 8 Regional Study Area 8 Project Area 8 Existing Conditions 9 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 9 Black-footed Ferret 10 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 11 Mexican Spotted Owl 15 Other Federally Protected Species 16 Bald Eagle 16 Wildlife Species of Concern 21 Mammals 25 Birds 29 Reptiles and Amphibians 32 Fish 33 Invertebrates 35 Terrestrial Wildlife 38 Big Game 38 Other Mammals 41 Birds 41 Reptiles and Amphibians 42 Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors 43 Sensitive Wildlife Habitat 48 Sensitive Wildlife Habitat 49 Aquatic Resources 49 • Potential Effects of the Proposed Project 50 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 50 • Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 51 Other Federally Protected Species 51 Bald Eagle 51 Wildlife Species of Concern 52 Mammals 52 Birds 53 Reptiles and Amphibians 54 Fish 54 Invertebrates 55 Terrestrial Wildlife 56 Big Game 56 Other Mammals 56 Birds 56 Reptiles and Amphibians 57 Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors 57 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats 58 Aquatic Resources 59 Mitigation and Recommendations 59 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 60 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 60 Other Federally Protected Species 61 Bald Eagle 61 Wildlife Species of Concern 61 Black-tailed Prairie Dog 61 Western Burrowing Owl 62 Great Blue Heron 62 Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog 62 State Sensitive Fish 62 Invertebrates 64 Terrestrial Wildlife 64 Big Game and Movement Corridors 64 Other Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians 65 Birds 65 Aquatic Resources 66 List of Preparers and Contacts Made 66 References 68 • ii • TABLES Table I. Federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species potentially occurring in the regional study area 9 Table 2. Federally listed wildlife species with potential to be affected by depletions to the Platte River system. 10 Table 3. Summary of Preble's trapping records for project area 14 Table 4. Bald Eagle Habitat Types and Recommended Setbacks. 19 Table 5. State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Potentially Occurring in the Project Arca. 22 Table 6. CNHP listed rare and imperiled wildlife species potentially occurring in the project area 24 Table 7. Deer and elk habitat categories 40 Table 8. Summary of wildlife crossing areas identified in the project area. 44 Table 9. Sensitive wildlife habitats in the regional study area. 49 Table 10. Summary of effects to important bald eagle foraging habitat within 3 miles of nests and roosts 52 FIGURES Figure 1. North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area 4 Figure 2. North 1-25 EIS: Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapping Data 13 • Figure 3. North I-25 EIS: Bald Eagle Habitat 18 Figure 4. Wildlife Habitat, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Arca—Northern Region 26 Figure 5. Wildlife Habitat,North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area—Central Region. 27 Figure 6. Wildlife Habitat, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Southern Region 28 Figure 7. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Northern Region. 46 Figure 8. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Central Region. 47 Figure 9. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area— Southern Region. 48 APPENDICES Appendix A: CDOT Impacted Prairie Dog Policy Appendix B: Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians Known to Occur in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado Appendix C: Fish Species Documented in the North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area Appendix D: Recommended Buffer Zones for Colorado Raptors • iii • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT • NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO OCTOBER 2008 Introduction The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for alternatives to improve transportation facilities in an area known as the North 1-25 EIS regional study area (regional study area). This Wildlife Technical Report has been prepared in support of the North I-25 EIS to address issues related to the potential effects on wildlife of state concern, migratory birds, and other wildlife resources in the project area. This report includes a description of the proposed project, existing conditions in the project area, a description of impacts of the project, and proposed mitigation measures. This Wildlife Technical Report will be used to identify wildlife resources in the project area, and provides a comparison for conditions under the proposed alternatives. An analysis of potential impacts resulting from the project to wildlife and wildlife • habitat, and a description of conservation measures is also included in this document. The proposed project consists of highway and transit improvements in the area from Fort Collins south to Denver. The project includes two packages of alternatives, Package A and Package B. Package A would include: • adding lanes to I-25, • upgrading interchanges on I-25 from State Highway (SH) 14 south to E-470, • constructing a commuter rail line from Fort Collins south to connect with the proposed North Metro Corridor, • adding commuter bus service on U.S. 85 from Greeley south to Denver, and • constructing commuter bus and rail stations along the commuter rail alignment and along U.S. 85. Package A would include nine commuter rail stations located in Fort Collins (three stations), Loveland (two stations), Berthoud (one station), Longmont(two stations), and Erie (one station). Five commuter bus stations would be located on U.S. 85, including Greeley (two stations), Evans (one station), Platteville(one station), and Fort Lupton (one station). Queue jumps (bus-only lanes) would be added at several locations on U.S. 85 and U.S. 34. 1 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Package B would include: • adding new managed toll lanes to I-25 and upgrading interchanges on 1-25, • adding bus rapid transit service with feeder bus service, and • constructing bus stations along 1-25 and at other locations. Package B would include 12 bus rapid transit stations located in Fort Collins, Harmony Road at Timberline Road, 1-25 at Harmony Road, 1-25 at Highway 392, 1-25 at Crossroads Boulevard, Highway 34 at Highway 257, Highway 34 at 83`d Street, Greeley, 1-25 at Highways 56 and 60, I-25 at Highway 119, I-25 at Highway 52, and I-25 at Highway 7. Each package would include either a bus or transit maintenance area. Regional Study Area and Project Area The North 1-25 EIS regional study area (regional study area) is bounded generally by U.S. Highway 287 (U.S. 287) on the west, U.S. 85 on the east, Wellington on the north, and Denver on the south (see Figure I). The regional study area is located primarily in Adams, Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties; and includes small sections within Broomfield and Denver counties. The regional study area includes all areas that were addressed during initial • screening of alternatives. The draft EIS will address two packages of alternatives, Package A and Package B, as well as a No Action Alternative. The project area is defined as the areas used by wildlife that could be affected by the proposed project under either Package A or Package B, including sections of 1-25 proposed for widening, proposed rail alignment, proposed transit stations and queue jumps, and proposed maintenance area. Along 1-25, the project would mostly affect land within the CDOT right-of-way. The median would be used where widening is needed in the southern one-third of the project area, between SH 7 and SH 66. Land within the CDOT right-of-way and median consists mostly of mowed grasslands with riparian trees and shrubs along major drainages. Outside of the CDOT right-of-way, surrounding land is mostly privately owned irrigated cropland, nonirrigated cropland, and commercial development. The transit stations would be primarily located on agricultural or vacant lands. The commuter rail line would primarily affect land within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way between Fort Collins and Longmont or within the abandoned • Union Pacific Railroad (UP) right-of-way from about Weld County Road 10 to the connection 2 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • with the proposed North Metro Corridor. Between Longmont and Weld County Road 10, the commuter rail line would follow SH 119 east, and would then turn south to follow Weld County Road 7. Land within the BNSF and UP rights-of-way consists mostly of unmowed grasslands with riparian trees and shrubs at crossings of major rivers and streams. Land use surrounding the commuter rail alignment is mostly agricultural, with residential development in Fort Collins, Longmont, and other communities along the alignment. Land along SH 119 consists of a mixture of publicly owned open space and private land that is mostly developed. The transit stations would be primarily located on agricultural or vacant lands. Some species of wildlife are more mobile than others, so the width of the project area varies depending on the species. For most wildlife species, the project area extends 1/2 mile from the center line of either 1-25 or from the center line of the proposed rail alignment. For bald eagles, the project area extends 1 mile from the center line of 1-25 or the proposed rail alignment. For less-mobile species, such as prairie dogs and most invertebrates, the project area extends 150 feet from the center line of 1-25 or the proposed rail alignment. Major drainages in the project area run in an easterly direction and include, from north to south, the Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Little Dry Creek, Big Dry Creek, and South Platte River. • 3 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 1. North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area. III 4- ilinis. LEGEND 4 Burlington Northern Santa Fe — wellington I\ .r - Great Western Railway "''�'1 --- • — — Union Pacific Railroad za7� 'Aries - • — • — • — — Abandoned Railroad \ A°" 14 Right-of-Way Li Fort Collin US or Interstate Highway NU, e . i 85 State Highway Tlern•th Severance `Men 3g2 Lucent I 287 Windsor Lovel{nd 3a 34 Greele Garden cxr /Emma -J\ _ EC LARIMER Coo °" —i J.twist""'n 1 Lin Sall 1 _ :tumor 38 ' ire.. __ -- serihoad di ti ties ' Nr�tr, Mud 'i Ill plattesul Lr, Lon i ont 36 / 85 (118, 287 IF .d.rtck Fort en Dacia Bould = r Edo ,�;, .,, , - 36 Louisville Srl. ton i Sande Broomfield .^ Thornton -. -�- - Cote co 72 k Mart glens s E470 Oetinorm•r r Vt astir l or notional Airport 1,11 ID • I JEFFERSOI ) . /i r t • VIn'• Statan `' /� r \ 40 i - 0 4 6 8 10 6 De ver —pi,tr. North 6th )va III WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Regulatory Framework CDOT projects must comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations protecting wildlife species including: • The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); • The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); • The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668-668d); • The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712); • Executive Order 13186; • Colorado State Statute 33 (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-2-102-106); • Senate Bill 40 (SB40) CDOT also has a prairie dog policy that applies to all CDOT projects. In addition, a portion of the project area is covered by the City of Fort Collins' The Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. All of these federal and state laws and CDOT policies area described below. Federal Endangered Species Act • Federally listed threatened and endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Potential effects on a federally listed species or its habitat resulting from a project with a federal action require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)under Section 7 of the ESA. Projects that may result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat for a federally listed species also require consultation with the USFWS. No regulations require consultations for effects to candidate species; however, if a species were to become listed during project planning or construction, consultation with the USFWS would be required. Upon final selection of an alternative package for the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS), a Biological Assessment and formal Section 7 consultation (if necessary) would be undertaken. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) provides that whenever the waters or channel of a body of water are modified by a department or agency of the U.S., the department or agency first shall consult with the USFWS and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the state where construction will occur, with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources. • 5 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act • The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting the taking, possession, and use of these two species for commerce except under certain specified conditions. The definition of"take" includes to: pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. In 2007, the term disturb was defined to mean "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, injury to an eagle, a decrease in productivity, or nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior" (72 Fed. Reg. 31332). Migratory Bird Treaty Act Originally passed in 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) protects raptors and other migratory birds and their active nest sites. The MBTA provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill; attempt to take, capture, or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried, or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product, manufactured or not. In Colorado, most birds, except for the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock dove (Columbia livia) (pigeon), and grouse/pheasant species (Order Galliformes), are protected under the MBTA (§§ 703-712). The MBTA stipulates that it is unlawful to destroy an active migratory bird nest, nestling, • or eggs. The USFWS allows vacant nests to be destroyed, but active nests with birds, their young, or eggs must be left undisturbed (USFWS 2003a). For most migratory bird species, the active nesting season is between March and August. Under the MBTA, the USFWS may issue Nest Depredation Permits, which would allow a pennittee to remove an active nest. The USFWS, however, issues very few Nest Depredation Permits, and only under specific circumstances. Executive Order 13186 Executive Order 13186, signed by President Clinton in 2001, directs federal agencies to take certain actions to implement the MBTA, including avoiding and minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions (86 FR 3853). Colorado State Statute 33 According to Colorado law (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-2-102-106), the state must maintain a list of species determined to be endangered or threatened within the state. State- listed wildlife species that are not already protected under federal law (i.e., ESA) are protected under State Statute 33, which is regulated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW). • Colorado Revised Statute 33 states that it is unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, 6 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • export, process, sell or offer for sale, or ship and for any common or contract carrier to knowingly transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on the state list of threatened and endangered wildlife(CRS Ann. §§33-2-105). Also under State Statute 33, the Colorado Wildlife Commission (Commission) issues regulations and develops management programs for Colorado species that are implemented by CDOW. SB40 SB40 (33-5-101-107, C.R.S. 1973, as amended) requires any agency of the state to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries. CDOT has developed a Memorandum of Agreement, in cooperation with CDOW, for SB40 wildlife certification (CDOT 2003). Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Land use within the area around Fossil Creek Reservoir is guided by the policies and principles presented in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (Fossil Creek Plan) adopted in 1998, amended in 1999, and amended again in 2000 (City of Fort Collins and Larimer County 1998) and the Resource Management and Implementation Plan for Fossil Creek reservoir • regional Open Space (EDAW 2003). The Fossil Creek Plan establishes natural area buffers ranging from 100 to 1,320 feet. Buffers for bald eagles in the Fossil Creek Plan, as recommended by the CDOW, include buffers around bald eagle winter roost sites (1,320 feet) and bald eagle hunting and feeding sites (660 to 1,320 feet). The Fossil Creek Plan establishes colonial nesting sites for great blue herons and black-crowned night herons (825 feet) and for waterfowl, shorebird, or wading bird production areas, wintering areas, or feeding areas (300 feet). CDOT Prairie Dog Policy CDOT adopted an Impacted Prairie Dog Policy on March 4, 2005 (see Appendix A). The policy consists of a series of steps that include avoiding prairie dog colonies and minimizing impacts, relocating prairie dog towns if feasible and if avoidance is not possible(for colonies greater than 2 acres in size), donating prairie dogs to raptor rehabilitation facilities or the USFWS black-footed ferret reintroduction program, and humanely euthanizing prairie dogs in construction areas if no other options are available. The policy also requires contacting CDOW's District Wildlife Manager before manipulation of prairie dogs or their colonies begins (CDOT 2005). • 7 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Methods • Regional Study Area Wildlife resources in the regional study area were reviewed during initial screening of alternatives using existing information from readily available sources. Existing information was reviewed and special concerns related to the project were identified through coordination and consultation with the USFWS, CDOW, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), and local open space management agencies. CDOT requested input from CDOW and USFWS during meetings that were held to discuss the project on May 2, 2006, June 19, 2006, and September 18, 2006. CNHP also provided data on rare species in the project area. Most wildlife distribution data came from CDOW's Natural Diversity Information Source (NDlS). Habitat types and sensitive natural resources in the regional study area were identified based on existing documentation, aerial photo interpretation, and limited field confirmation. Only reconnaissance-level surveys and fortuitous observations of rare species were conducted within the regional study area. No site-specific presence-absence surveys were conducted during initial review of the regional study area. Project Area Once the project area was identified, more detailed habitat evaluations were performed • within the project area based on fieldwork and additional review of existing information: • Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat was evaluated in the field and USFWS Preble's trapping data for potential crossings of major drainages were reviewed. • Bald eagle nest and roost location data was updated with more site-specific information obtained from field reconnaissance and from the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). • Black-tailed prairie dog colonies were initially mapped based on information provided by CDOW (CDOW 2002). Prairie dog mapping was updated within %3 mile of the north 1-25 corridor and the proposed commuter rail alignment based on aerial photograph interpretation with field verification. Prairie dog colonies within proposed transit station sites were also mapped based on aerial photography with field verification. • Stick nests that were confirmed or suspected to be used by raptors were mapped in the field within '/2 mile of the north 1-25 corridor and the proposed commuter rail alignment. Raptor nest mapping occurred primarily in April 2005 and April 2006. • 8 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • • Potential wildlife crossing areas were identified based on CDOW input, road mortality data from CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol, and field review. Identification of potential wildlife crossings focused on areas in the proposed alignment right-of-way, vacant lots, drainage ditches, floodplains and floodways, parks, golf courses, open space, and other landscape features conducive to wildlife movement. It is expected that more detailed surveys would be conducted prior to construction of any build alternative. The field team did not attempt to identify natural resources within residential and commercial developments, and did not access private land to conduct the inventory with the exception of railroad rights-of-way along the proposed commuter rail alignment. Existing Conditions Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife species that potentially occur in the regional study area are shown in Table I. Correspondence with USFWS indicated that these species should be addressed in the EIS (USFWS 2005a). Table 1. Federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species potentially • occurring in the regional study area (USFWS 2005a). Common Name Latin Name Status Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Endangered Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentali.s lucida Threatened Table 2 lists species that could potentially be affected by water depletions in the Platte River system (USFWS 2005a). Species on this list could be adversely affected by water depletions associated with a variety of project elements including detention ponds and dust-abatement activities. Species listed in Table 2 are unlikely to occur in the regional study area and will not be addressed further in this Wildlife Technical Report. Potential impacts to Platte River system species will be addressed, if necessary, in a Biological Assessment to be prepared at a later date as part of consultation with the USFWS. • 9 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIEID,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 2. Federally listed wildlife species with potential to be affected by depletions to the Platte River system (USFWS 2005a). Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Whooping crane Grus Americana Endangered Least tern Sterna anrillarum Endangered Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis Endangered Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus alhus Endangered The following sections provide a description of habitat requirements for each species and an assessment of the potential for habitat in the regional study area to support the species. Black footed Ferret Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The black-footed ferret is listed as endangered under the ESA. Black-footed ferrets are associated with black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies where they depend on this species for food and shelter(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Prior to the discovery of a population of black-footed fcrrets in 1981 at Meeteetse, Wyoming, it was believed that this species was extinct. The widespread practice of poisoning prairie dogs during settlement of • the west is thought to have been a major factor in the black-footed ferret's demise (CDOW 2006a). Currently, black-footed ferrets are known to exist only in the Shirley Basin of Wyoming, in captive breeding facilities in various locations across the country, and in various sites where captive reared ferrets have been reintroduced into the wild (Fitzgerald et al. 1994; CDOW 2006a). The last official record of a black-footed ferret in Colorado was near Buena Vista in 1943 (CDOW 2006a). Despite considerable search time in western Colorado and on the eastern plains by various state and federal agency staff, no naturally occurring populations of black- footed ferrets have been found in Colorado (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Since 2001, two black- footed ferret populations have been established in Colorado at Coyote Basin and at the Wolf Creek Management Area, both in the northwestern pan of the state (CDOW 2006a). Potential Habitat In 1989, the USFWS published black-footed ferret survey guidelines stating that black- tailed prairie dog towns or complexes of greater than 80 acres are considered potential black- footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). However, no new populations of black-footed ferrets • 10 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NOR rH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • have ever been discovered in Colorado using these methods. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. In July 2007 the Service published a map of"Block-cleared Areas for Black-Footed Ferret Surveys in Colorado" (USFWS 2007). In designating a block clearance zone, the Service eliminated the need for individuals or agencies to coordinate with the Service prior to conducting activities in habitats that otherwise would be deemed to have potential to support the black-footed ferret. Because the entire project area is within a block clearance zone, the black-footed ferret is assumed to be absent from the project area and the potential occurrence of this species in the project area or impacts to this species will not be addressed further in this Wildlife Technical Report. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's)was listed as a threatened species on May 13, 1998 under the ESA of 1973, as amended (63 FR 66777 [December 3, 1998]). In March 2004, • the USFWS initiated a status review of Preble's based on two petitions to remove Preble's from federal protection under the ESA (USFWS 2004a). On February 2, 2005, the USFWS proposed to delist Preble's (70 FR 5405). On February 17, 2006, the USFWS announced a 6- month extension of the time required to make the decision on whether to delist Preble's. Until a final determination of Preble's status under the ESA in 2007 is made, the USFWS will continue to manage Preble's as a threatened species in accordance with existing laws and policies. Typically, Preble's occurs in low undergrowth consisting of grasses and forbs, in open wet meadows, riparian corridors, or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover (USFWS 2004c; Meaney et al. 1997). Preble's occurs below 7,600 feet in elevation, generally in lowlands with medium to high moisture along permanent or intermittent streams (USFWS 2004c; CNHP 1996; Ryon 1996). Research by CDOW has suggested that habitat quality for Preble's can be predicted by the amount of shrub cover available at a site (White and Shenk 2000). Potential Habitat • A number of riparian areas in the project area have potential habitat for Preble's, including the Cache la Poudre River, Spring Creek,Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Dry Creek, Little 1I WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIHLD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNI IES,COLORADO Thompson River, St. Vrain River, and South Platte River. ERO Resources Corporation(ERO) evaluated the project area for Preble's habitat during site visits on April 18, April 22, and August 31, 2005. ERO also reviewed trapping records maintained by the USFWS. Trapping records show that trapping surveys have been conducted on all of the major drainages in the project area (Table 3). Trapping surveys have found Preble's in riparian habitat near the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers east of 1-25 (USFWS 2005b). Preblc's is assumed to be present in riparian habitat along the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. The other drainages in the project area have been surveyed extensively for Preble's in the past and available information indicates that these sites are unlikely to support populations of Preblc's. It is likely that the facilities associated with the preferred alternative identified in the EIS would not be constructed for several years, and available information on Preble's distribution may need to be reevaluated prior to construction. Critical habitat has been designated in Larimer County; however, no designated critical habitat for this species occurs in the project area. Past trapping surveys near each crossing of a major drainage by proposed project components are shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 3. • • 12 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO 0 Figure 2. North I-25 EIS: Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapping Data. LEGEND \e Study Corridors (N Highways �:e We�gton• /\/ Arterial Roads .. \ -� 85 ' Regional Study Area ! �'' Nt OCity Boundaries / ! Perot , 1 \ a Cities & Towns in Project Area \ — \ • Preble's Trapped-Found i �f- i Ault. , • Preble's Trapped-Not Found I� ` iI Z' . I Dmnatn severame Eetm I I • Luc■ k erne t i • • ■ ■ \ I / r � 1 1 �~ • , �� Gard. city 1 el I • _ w • • • Eons ' I I •Le See , l I Carom :n L a all 85 ! i . v Waken lane • / I'Ill . klaes/ ■* G /Mead ill it / / _ .. / Rellevdle 1 lcnpnonl I II ) [�] lone, 1 ii Vylmar • 4 Filename rI r 3 � Frederik 1 •all wan a t' 1119 ip O oeoono7 con L . . ' • o Gtetblur* I • • ■ 6,e I 0l I . Wanen. 1 ,tee l`�, • i ■B-igflon , ./ . i4 .w.„-. - r � a Eastlake• )� .� ii, , \.1) �_ �' Broamte1d Hen. .� 'N "glean 6 •` Thornton ! 721 \ r - / _� \ r /r 1 , �• 1 �.i �_ :.e------ --iN i . i /. Figure 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 f _ North 1-25 EIS Preble's Meadow ' ' ' Miles A . .-----'� Ir Jumping Mouse (Preble's) Data 1 1 1 Source. USFWS III 13 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 3. Summary of Preble's trapping records for project area. • Location Past Trapping Surveys Conclusion Cache la Poudre River at Five negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this commuter rail alignment 1998 to 2002 within 1 mile upstream or portion of the project area is not downstream. occupied by Preble's. Cache la Poudre River at Three negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this 1-25 1999 to 2004 within 1 mile of 1-25. portion of the project area is not Additional negative trapping surveys occupied by Preble's. within 10 miles. Cache la Poudre River at One negative trapping survey within 1 Urban area. Available data Greeley Transit Station mile in 2001. Negative trapping survey indicates that this portion of the within 2 miles in 2000. project area is not occupied by Preble's. Spring Creek at commuter Three negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this rail alignment 2000 to 2002 within I mile of BNSF. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Fossil Creek at commuter Three negative trapping surveys from Available data indicates that this rail alignment 1998 to 2000 within I mile. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Fossil Creek at 1-25 One negative trapping survey in 2002 Not suitable habitat(cattails). within 1 mile. Available data indicates that this portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Big Thompson River at Two negative trapping surveys in 1999 Available data indicates that this • commuter rail alignment and 2001 within 1 mile. Six additional portion of the project area is not trapping surveys between BNSF and I- occupied by Preble's. 25 were all negative. Big Thompson River at I- Three negative surveys just west of 1- Preble's is assumed to be present 25 25 from 1995 to 2003. One positive at this location and east of 1-25. survey east of 1-25 in 2001 less than 1 mile downstream. Dry Creek at commuter Two negative trapping surveys within 1 Available data indicates that this rail alignment mile in 1997 and 1998. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Little Thompson River at Two negative trapping surveys within 1 Available data indicates that this commuter rail alignment mile from 1997 to 2000. portion of the project area is not occupied by Preble's. Little Thompson River at No surveys within 1 mile. Two Preble's is assumed to be present I-25 positive surveys more than 1 mile east at this location and east of 1-25. of 1-25. St.Vrain Creek at 1-25 Four negative surveys within I mile Available data indicates that this and SH 119 upstream or downstream of 1-25. Eight portion of the project area is not additional surveys between U.S.287 occupied by Preble's. and 1-25,and two more surveys east of 1-25 were all negative over the period of 1999 to 2003. Little Dry Creek at 1-25 Never surveyed. Evaluated not trapped Not suitable habitat,Preble's several times,not suitable habitat unlikely to occur. (cattails). Little Dry Creek at Never surveyed. Evaluated not trapped Not suitable habitat,Preble's • commuter rail alignment several times,not suitable habitat. unlikely to occur. 14 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NOR tH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Location Past Trapping Surveys Conclusion Big Dry Creek at I-25 Within block clearance zone. No surveys or mitigation required. Big Dry Creek at Within block clearance zone. No surveys or mitigation commuter rail alignment required. South Platte River at Ft. Seven negative trapping surveys within Available data indicates that this Lupton Transit Station 2 miles upstream and downstream from portion of the project area is not 1998 to 2004. occupied by Preble's. Also, transit station sites are not suitable habitat. Preble's unlikely to occur. South Platte River at One negative trapping survey within I Potential transit station sites are Platteville Transit Station mile in 2002. not within suitable habitat. Preble's unlikely to occur. South Platte River at Two negative trapping surveys within 1 One potential transit station is Evans Transit Station mile in 2000 and 2002. located near the Cache la Poudre River but is within a cultivated field and is not habitat. Preble's unlikely to occur. Source: USFWS S 2005b. Mexican Spotted Owl Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The Mexican spotted owl is listed as threatened under the ESA. It is found from southern • Colorado and Utah through portions of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, south to central Mexico. This species typically inhabits areas with steep, exposed cliffs and canyons that are characterized by piiion-juniper and old-growth forests mixed with Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine(Pinus ponderosa), and white fir (Abies concolor) (Andrews and Righter 1992). Nesting Mexican spotted owls have been documented in Colorado on the southern massif of Pike's Peak in Teller and El Paso counties, and in the Wet Mountains (Boyle in Kingery 1998). Critical habitat has been designated in the Pike National Forest in western El Paso and Douglas counties (69 FR 53182 [August 31, 2004]), as well as other areas in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. No critical habitat has been designated in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, or Weld counties, including the project area. Potential Habitat The project area lacks the steep cliff and canyons or old-growth forests that provide habitat for this species. No designated critical habitat for Mexican spotted owl occurs in this area. A handful of records during winter and migration exist for this species in Boulder, Larimer, and Adams counties (Andrews and Righter 1992), but this species is probably very rare in these • counties, even in suitable habitat. This species is unlikely to occur in the project area due to a lack of suitable habitat and will not be addressed further in this Wildlife Technical Report. 15 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFILLD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other Federally Protected Species • Bald Eagle Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The bald eagle is a large North American raptor with a historical distribution throughout most of the U.S. As a result of population declines attributed to habitat loss, the use of organochlorine pesticides, and mortality from shooting, the bald eagle was listed as an endangered species in 1978 (Buehler 2000; 43 FR 6233 [February 14, 1978]). Since its listing, the population trend for the bald eagle has been upward (Buehler 2000). The bald eagle was downlisted from endangered to threatened in 1995 (64 FR 36454 [July 6, 1999]). The USFWS recently removed the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species due to population recovery (72 FR 37346 [July 7, 2007]). The dclisting takes effect on August 8, 2007. The bald eagle continues to be protected under the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Eagles feed primarily on fish and waterbirds but also feed on small mammals, mammal carcasses, and prey stolen from other raptors (Buehler 2000). Typical bald eagle nesting habitat consists of forests or wooded areas that contain many tall, aged, dying, and dead trees (Martell 1992). Bald eagles are migratory and are primarily winter residents in Colorado. Nesting in Colorado and along the Colorado Front Range has increased in recent years. In 2001, there were an estimated 51 breeding pairs of bald eagles in Colorado, and more than 800 individuals were counted during winter(CDOW 2005a). Most nesting in Colorado occurs near lakes or reservoirs and along rivers. • 16 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COLN IIES,COLORADO • "Essential" winter roosts are defined by the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan according to the following criteria (Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team [NSBERT] 1983): • Locations used annually for 2 weeks or longer by adult or immature wintering eagles known (or strongly suspected) to be from nearby breeding areas; • Locations used annually by 15 or more eagles for 2 weeks or longer(applies to Colorado and other specified states); • Locations used by bald eagles during periods of extremely harsh weather when suitable feeding areas and night roost sites are limited in number (the minimum 2-week period of use does not apply to this criterion); and • Areas demonstrating historically consistent use should be regarded as essential habitat if still suitable regardless of present use. Figure 3 shows the locations of each type of bald eagle habitat mapped by CDOW (Natural Diversity Information Source [NDIS] 2006). Table 4 identifies types of bald eagle habitat: active nests, inactive nests, roost sites, communal roost sites, winter forage, winter range, summer forage, summer range, and winter concentration areas, and shows recommended • setbacks for each. • 17 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 3. North I-25 EIS: Bald Eagle Habitat. III I r LEGEND I ^, Study Corridors r • /s.. Highways "/ Arterial Roads I o N VI ' •�Regional Study Area �`% City Boundaries ,i ? w�. 4 / . kJ Cities & Towns in Project Area - rod 61 - 1 I` Bald Eagle Winter Range ' . ,,x • Bald Eagle Active Nest Sites rilli (1/2 Mile Buffer) �►'L" �• Golden Eagle Active Nest Sites � _. o F» IQ (1/2 Mile Buffer) Ma #.4"4 so • Bald Eagle Unknown Nest Sites ` •` r 'La \ E (1/2 Mile Buffer) Bald Eagle Winter Forage - 1A ower X 1 • ' Bald Eagle Winter Concentration i - ; - ' " - i A • Got.,Gty i? ds. , el- Bald Eagle Summer Forage i #.' er.r+.' Bald Eagle Roost Sites I . - .. '1 •' , u sue.•� ! Bald Eagle Communal Roost T ' corm.), - '� ' , � ' / - _ -, � i I ' - • - , w - �' t, —_ I Bmtrwl ° / ♦ / /� i L. f 0 f :Vett' % ' t . -MT . 31 i �. r \i/N-1.-. . es , 4 wnse_ll 9 l ! r«at� ' ' V 1 :,.. _ • a FndsrJ /.• Y ....) : f - 4 OsrOrw Fat Lupton I. I v G�w,wrn . : rT1L r 1 1(:� ___ _ _ _ _ Ili • •Atittenbiteg t, • '# )1 I • •1 Vier ' Ekoc+mMa dr 0 .ish....2... a ` T o Immix' f 1/4\12"...N.-..1\ 514 \ I • L. \ ta. orr I 1 DerrVe �i,�_ ). I N ~ 4 `� Figure 3 y_ _j`n\ ! North I-25 EIS Bald I 2 4 6 8 1 Miles /V ) L_../ . Eagle NDIS Data i I ` Source. CDOW (NDIS 2006) III 18 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Table 4. Bald Eagle Habitat Types and Recommended Setbacks. Habitat"Type Description Recommended Setback Active nest A specific location in which a pair of bald Year-round closure within %4 eagles have at least attempted to nest within mile. Recommended buffer of the last 5 years.Any nest location that can be V2 mile from November 15 to directly tied to courtship,breeding,or July 3 I. brooding behavior is considered active. Inactive nest A former active nest location in which neither None(Craig 2002); '/,mile courtship,breeding.or brooding activity has (NSBERT 1983). been observed at any time during the last 5 years. Communal roost site Groups of or individual trees used by more Recommended buffer zone of than 15 eagles for diurnal and/or nocturnal !/4 mile from November 15 to perches. March 15. Up to/2 mile if there is a direct line of sight from the roost. Roost site Groups of or individual trees that provide Recommended buffer zone of diurnal and/or nocturnal perches for less than '/4 mile from November 15 to 15 wintering bald eagles;includes a buffer March 15. Up to 1/2 mile if zone extending 1/4 mile around these sites. there is a direct line of sight These trees are usually the tallest available from the roost. Note that roost trees in the wintering area and are primarily sites as mapped by CDOW located in riparian habitats. already include a ''/4-mile buffer. • Winter concentration Areas(e.g.,tree and islands)within an None existing winter range where eagles concentrate between November 15 and April I. These areas may be associated with roost sites. Winter forage Foraging areas frequented by wintering bald None eagles between November 15 and March 15. May be a large area radiating from preferred roosting sites. In western Colorado,preferred roosting sites are within dominant riparian zones. Winter ranee Those areas where bald eagles have been None observed between November 15 and April 1. Summer forage Foraging areas frequented by breeding bald None eagles from March 15 to July 30.These areas are almost always associated with nesting pairs. Sources:CDOW 2005d:Craig 2002. Potential Habitat Five active bald eagle nests occur within 3 miles of the sections of I-25 proposed for widening or the proposed rail alignment. These nests were monitored in 2006 and 2007 by the RMBO Bald Eagle Watch Program(RMBO 2007; Gamble 2006). Nest locations are shown in • Figure 3 and are described below: • Windsor Nest—An active bald eagle nest is known to occur on the Cache la Poudre River near the confluence with Fossil Creek,approximately 2 miles east of I-25 and 19 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL RI-.FOR I NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Fossil Creek Reservoir(NDIS 2006). This site has been used by nesting bald eagles since 2002, fledged one eaglet in 2006, and had two nestlings in 2007 (Gamble 2006; RMBO 2007). • Berthoud Nest—A bald eagle nest occurs just west of the town of Berthoud, and just north of SH 56. A pair of eagles nested at this site in 2007, and hatched two nestlings on March 28 (RMBO 2007). • Longmont/St. Vrain Nest—In 2006, a pair of bald eagles nested at a site on the St. Vrain Creek just west of the Boulder/Weld County line. This nest was new in 2006. Two adult eagles were observed at the nest incubating and adding nest material in March and April 2006 (Gamble 2006). This nest failed to produce fledglings in 2006, which is not unusual for a new nest. Nest building activity by a pair of eagles was reported at this nest from February 17 to March 15, 2007 (RMBO 2007). • Delcamino/Boulder Creek Nest—This nest has been active for at least four nesting seasons (2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, and 2006/2007) and is located more than '/z mile west of the intersection of Weld County Roads 7 and 20 on Boulder Creek (Beane 1996). This nest was apparently successful in 2006 as a juvenile eagle was observed at the nest in June (Gamble 2006). In April 2007, two nestlings were observed in the nest(RMBO 2007). • Thornton Nest—This nest is located on Big Dry Creek near 148`h Avenue and is approximately I mile east of I-25. This nest apparently failed in 2006. Two adults were observed incubating and apparently feeding young in March and April, but no • eagles were observed in the nest area from late May through June(Gamble 2006). A pair of eagles nested at this site in 2007, and hatched two nestlings on April 10 (RMBO 2007). CDOW mapping shows another active nest located approximately 1/2 mile northwest of the intersection of Highway 60 and Larimer County Road 17 (NDIS 2006). This site is approximately 11/2 miles west of the proposed rail line and is occupied by golden eagles rather than bald eagles. This nest has successfully produced young golden eagles for at least 6 years as of 2006 (Ryel, pers. comm. 2006). CDOW has identified roost sites at several locations that are adjacent to or within 1 mile of the project area (Figure 3). • Fossil Creek Reservoir Communal Roost—CDOW has mapped a communal roost site at Fossil Creek Reservoir about '/2 mile west of I-25 (NDIS 2006). Because most of the larger trees surrounding the reservoir are used by eagles in winter, and specific roost locations and levels of use can vary depending on prey availability, weather, and other factors, CDOW considers the reservoir as a whole when mapping the limits of the roost. As mapped by CDOW, the communal roost covers the majority of the reservoir, and extends about ''/4 mile from the edge of the reservoir, not including the southeastern finger of the reservoir(Swede Lake). 20 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • • St. Vrain Creek and Boulder Creek Roost—CDOW has mapped the section of St. Vrain Creek from west of U.S. 287 to east of 1-25 and the section of Boulder Creek starting about 5 miles upstream from the confluence with St. Vrain Creek to the confluence with St. Vrain Creek as a bald eagle roost site. Field visits by ERO biologists in February and March 2005 confirmed that bald eagles were using this general area for roosting. • Boulder Creek Communal Roost— A communal roost site is located about 3 miles southwest of the intersection of 1-25 and SH 119 on Boulder Creek (NDIS 2006). Bald eagle foraging habitat in the regional study area is shown in Figure 3. Prairie dog colonies and open water such as lakes and reservoirs arc important foraging habitat for bald eagles in the regional study area, especially when located within 3 miles of a bald eagle nest or winter night roost. Wildlife Species of Concern This section describes wildlife species that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the project area and although not federally listed, have been listed as species of special concern by the CDOW, or have been described as rare, vulnerable, or imperiled in the state by the CNHP. Wildlife species of concern with the potential to occur in or near the project area and their state status are presented below (Table 5 and Table 6). • 21 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WED COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 5. State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Potentially Occurring in III the Project Area. Common Scientific Potential to Name Name Status Habitat Occur in Project Area Mammals Black-tailed C'vnomvs SC Open space and vacant land throughout Known to prairie dog ludovicianus project area occur Swift fox Vu/pes relax SC Shortgrass prairie,generally east of I-25 Potentially in Larimer and Weld counties occurs Townsend's Plecorus SC Caves and mineshafts,urban areas, Potentially big-eared bat townsendii riparian areas occurs Birds Plains sharp- Tympamu•hus SE Grasslands and scrublands Unlikely to tailed grouse phasiane//us occur jamesii Western Athene ST Potentially occurs in prairie dog colonies Known to burrowing owl cunicu/aria occur Mountain Charadrius SC Shortgrass prairie Unlikely to plover montanus occur Ferruginous Buteo regalis SC May forage in prairie dog towns in winter Likely to hawk occur American Falco SC Cliffs and surrounding areas Unlikely to III peregrine Peregrinus occur falcon Great blue Ardea herodius None Nests in colonies in groves of trees on Known to heron major rivers and reservoirs;forages in all occur aquatic habitats Reptiles/Amphibians Common Thamnophis SC Streams,ditches,and ponds;known to Known to gartersnake .sirralis occur on major drainages in the project occur area Midget faded Crotalus viridis SC Occurs in grasslands in western Colorado Unlikely to rattlesnake concolor occur Northern Rana pipiens SC Steams,lakes,ponds,marshes,and wet Known to leopard frog meadows occur Fish Common shiner Notropis SE St.Vrain Creek and South Platte River Known to cornutus occur J Plains minnow Ilybognathu.s SE Cache la Poudre River,two records from Unlikely to placitus 1996(CDOW 2005b) occur Brassy minnow Hyhognathus ST Cache la Poudre River,Fossil Creek, St. Known to hankin.soni Vrain River,and South Platte River occur Iowa darter Etheostoma SC Cache la Poudre River,Big Thompson Known to exile River,and St.Vrain River occur • 22 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER.LARIMFR,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Common Scientific Potential to Status Habitat Occur in Name Name Project Area Stonecat Notwus flavus SC St. Vrain River Known to occur Invertebrates Cylindrical Anodontoides SC Mud and sand in small creeks Potentially papershell Jerussacianus occurs *Key to CDOW species ranking system: SE: State Endangered. Those species or subspecies of native wildlife whose prospects for survival or recruitment within this state are in jeopardy,as determined by the Commission. ST: State Threatened. Those species or subspecies of native wildlife which,as determined by the Commission, are not in immediate jeopardy of extinction but are vulnerable because they exist in such small numbers,are so extremely restricted in their range,or are experiencing such low recruitment or survival that they may become extinct. SC: Special Concern.Those species or subspecies of native wildlife that have been removed from the state threatened or endangered list within the last 5 years; are proposed for federal listing(or are a federal listing 'candidate species")and are not already state-listed;have experienced,based on the best available data,a downward trend in numbers or distribution lasting at least 5 years that may lead to an endangered or threatened status;or are otherwise determined to be vulnerable in Colorado. Sources: CDOW 2005b;NDIS 2006. • During discussions with CDOW, it was determined that several species in Table 5 are unlikely to occur in the project area (Sherman, pers. comm. 2006). Plains sharp-tail grouse, mountain plover, and American peregrine falcon are not addressed further in this report becausc they are unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat, or because the project area is outside the known range of these species. Although great blue heron is not listed as a species of concern by either CDOW or CNHP, it was added to the list of species to be reviewed at the request of CDOW (Sherman, pers. comm. 2006). CDOW species of concern are not protected by statute, but are rare and thus are typically addressed in any EIS prepared for proposed transportation projects. While CDOW species of concern are not protected by statute, CDOT is committed to their conservation. • 23 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 6. CNHP listed rare and imperiled wildlife species potentially occurring in the • project area. Common Scientific Potential to Name Name Status. Habitat Occur in Project Area Birds Black-necked llimantopus S3 Margins of lakes and ponds,and Unlikely to stilt mexicanus marshy areas occur Invertebrates Stonefly Mesocapnia S1 Low-elevation streams in the southern Known to occur �risoni Rocky Mountains with minimal in Little siltation Thompson River Sandhill Boloria Selene SI S2 Wet meadows,bogs,and marshes Unlikely to fritillary sbulocollis occur Arogos skipper Atrntone S2 Undisturbed grasslands and prairies Unlikely to arogos occur Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe S2 Tallgrass prairie in the foothills Unlikely to occur Dusted skipper Atr►rtonopsis S2 Tallgrass prairie in the foothills Unlikely to hianna occur Two-spotted Euphves S2 Marshes,bogs,and wet meadows Unlikely to • skipper himac•ula occur Moss'elfin Callophrvs S2S3 Rocky outcrops and cliffs Unlikely to mossii occur schtyveri Rhesus skipper Polices rhesus S2S3 Shortgrass and mixed grass prairie in Unlikely to the foothills occur Cross-line Polites S3 Foothills areas Unlikely to skipper origenes occur Modest sphinx Pachy;sphinx S3 Riparian habitats and moist Unlikely to moth modes►a mountainsides occur *Key to CNI 1P imperilment ranks for Colorado: SI:Critically imperiled statewide because of rarity(5 or fewer occurrences in the world/state;or 1,000 or fewer individuals),or because some factor of its biology makes it especially vulnerable to extinction. S2: Imperiled statewide because of rarity(6 to 20 occurrences,or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals),or because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. S3:Vulnerable throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range(21 to 100 occurrences,or 3,000 to 10,000 individuals). S4:Apparently secure statewide,though it may be quite rare in parts of its range,especially at the periphery. Usually more than 100 occurrences and 10,000 individuals. Source: CNHP 2005. • 24 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • While CNHP imperiled species are not protected by statute, CDOT is committed to their conservation. Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog The black-tailed prairie dog is a state species of special concern and was, until recently, a federal candidate species for listing as threatened according to the ESA (69 FR 15951217 [August 18, 2004]). Prairie dogs are important components of the shortgrass and mesic grasslands systems. They are commonly considered a "keystone" species because their activities (burrowing and intense grazing) provide food and shelter for many other grassland species, and have a large effect on community structure and ecosystem function (Power et al. 1996). Prairie dogs help provide habitat for other species by creating an environment that is inviting to other animals. Species such as black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, prairie rattlesnake, and mountain plover are closely linked to prairie dog burrow systems for food and/or cover. Prairie dogs provide an important prey resource for numerous predators including American badger, coyote, red fox, bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and other raptors. • Typically, areas occupied by prairie dogs have greater cover and abundance of perennial grasses and annual forbs compared to nonoccupied sites (Whicker and Detling 1988; Witmer et al. 2000). Prairie dogs can contribute to overall landscape heterogeneity, affect nutrient cycling, and provide nest sites and shelter for wildlife such as rattlesnakes and burrowing owls (Whicker and Detling 1988). Prairie dogs also can denude the surface by clipping above- ground vegetation and contributing to exposed bare ground by digging up roots (Smith 1967). Prairie dogs are found in agricultural and vacant lands throughout the project area. Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 show the location of prairie dog colonies in the project area. Prairie dog colonies cover approximately 717 acres within '/z mile of the centerline of 1-25 in the project area and 609 acres within % mile of the proposed commuter rail alignment. • 25 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS. BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 4. Wildlife Habitat, North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area — Northern Region. • LEGEND Al Study Corridors • Raptor Nests (Source- ERO 2006) /\/ Highways Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) o Cities & Towns in Project Area Prairie Dogs (Source. ERO 2006) /N/ Arterial Roads Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2006) ( 1 Regional Study Area 7 A Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2006) City Boundaries s. ® 1— .—*•9.,z- 0 / _ 'l ,.✓'� ~ i Welligton \. � • .:fre" r 1/../\....)q/ . ♦ 1 : Pierce ,\ Fort Collins � • • Autt P i III 0 * 0 i I a Iii 1 . 1 - i itt - - ° Timnath •o Eaton Severance 1 ` " It t NW _...---__ • H \ 1 • . Windsor g \ Lucere : 1 )587 c i %ILL ,,,,, • . 1 l: • Grey .t ilk \‘---- lb ph ?1 , • ,---- 4 Garden Ci H J • O 1 Loveland r �— ��_1 _ _•_ s i 1 Evans • a j Metchline Figure 5 S ��1� E ;� 1 = /- Johnstown NI -Johnstown. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 A North 1-25 EIS Wildlife I ' ' r ' Miles o Milliken Habitat - Northern Region ----p ID 26 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Ill Figure 5. Wildlife Habitat, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area — Central Region. T - — _ Lucerne LEGEND :L_) ` AV Study Corridors • Raptor Nests (Source: ERO 2006) ' a OR AlHighways Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) I Greeley y a Cities & Towns in Project Area - Prairie Dogs (Source: ERO 2006) 34 /\/ Arterial Roads rc Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2006) in Regional Study Area %% Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2006) • Garden City ill e del City Boundaries A � vans Matchline Figure 4 • • La Salle Campion Johnstown ,�I O Milliken / _ T I ' a „4 , = Berthoud / Gilcrest • , I I / /4/ I / I • o dill I ; Mead ' I i 8 • g Platteville /—1 ILongmont I I • lh, Vollmer a J • i ,� , a 1 ,� . a Firestone L4mmNbOt twot 3 6 t Ille Frederick _ .d • a;, — .____� .. a s' ' • II, a Dacono Fort Lupton ~ a Gunbarrel 4 ' • • v r Erie 9 • /a Imont .g ' • i • 6 • . a �a jA..._�.. t • a Wattenberg %� li • _ ` W), Fe6h gor i► • . � Lafayette —155-Pr• f" , tit) I� LouisvilleC Brigh n f N / krl '-�, Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 n ' I North 1-25 EIS Wildlife 1 ' ' ' ' I Miles /V t 1 Habitat - Central Region -. / 1 Fatten a h r. 0 27 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Ill Figure 6. Wildlife Habitat, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area — Southern Region. Ionel LEGEND v 1 Vollmar a Al Study Corridors • Raptor Nests (Source ERO 2006) "/ Highways Prairie Dogs (Source NDIS 2006) 1e • • 't o Cities & Towns in Project Area _ Prairie Dogs (Source ERO 2006) k /\/ Arterial Roads Swift Fox Overall Range (Source. NDIS 2006) M L....1 Regional Study Area 7 i Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source NDIS 2006) -1—'- 0 leg City Boundaries Fort Lupton • — s w e r �� 0 a a e : J Erie' � • S % . - - i ., T a a Wattenberg f Boulder • .� a t.o atch ' i FiguR 5 • P a .. .. . x ... • •...• +. A . • �' . . .•.lj Lafayette k,_ __ y - -54-'- ' �.`• r �L�oulsvllle . �_ . Brighton t IA r-" • •� k � • 4, Superior i L �' . . � 1$ . ' •"Illr�'N-.„ 4. • .• Eastlake '•�` _Broomfield► Hen-Person 0 1. ......._ . t ' R ® ; +� • Northglenri _ III 1� �� 9' r \\ o Thornton (•it - / t i . I 41 II 5 \ .4 ,---- . 1 Ifies___________,...._, Denver NI • ►1M 6 i / ..„.........n_ io /e. ,-,\ ,. N Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 North I-25 EIS Wildlife I ' ' ' 1 Miles /V rt• j � Habitat - South Region 28 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPOR I NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Swift fox The swift fox is a state species of special concern. The distribution of the swift fox includes the grasslands of eastern Colorado (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Dens are usually located on sites dominated by native shortgrass prairie species such as blue grama and buffalograss. They are sometimes associated with prairie dog towns although they generally excavate their own dens (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). An area generally north of Highway 34 and east of 1-25 has been mapped by CDOW as being within overall swift fox range (NDIS 2006). Overall swift fox range is shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. The swift fox is unlikely to occur in other portions of the project area. Townsend's big-eared bat The Townsend's big-eared bat is a state species of special concern that uses a variety of habitats including coniferous forest, desert shrublands, and pinon-juniper woodlands (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Townsend's big-eared bats are year-round residents in Colorado that forage primarily for insects over water or along the margins of vegetation (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). These bats are relatively sedentary and do not migrate long distances (Harvey et al. 1999). They use caves and abandoned mines for roosts and hibernation. Townsend's big eared bats return to the same roost sites year after year(Harvey et al. 1999). Hibernation sites with appropriate temperature and humidity are important for these bats, and they are susceptible to die-offs or winter roost abandonment if disturbed by humans (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Colorado Gap analysis data shows Townsend's big-eared bat habitat as occurring in forested foothills, urban areas, and riparian forests (CDOW 2001). CDOW lists Townsend's big-eared bat as uncommon in Boulder and Larimer counties (NDIS 2006). This species has been documented in Fort Collins just east of the project area (CNHP 2005), and has the potential to occur in urban areas and riparian forests in the project area. Birds Western burrowing owl The western burrowing owl is a small migratory owl that occupies prairie dog colonies in Colorado during the summer breeding season. The burrowing owl has been listed as • threatened by the CDOW and is protected under the MBTA. The owl is active during the day and uses abandoned prairie dog burrows for nesting and roosting (Jones 1998 in Kingery). 29 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Burrowing owls are typically present in Colorado between March 1 and October 31 (Craig • 2002). CDOW lists the burrowing owl as fairly common in Larimer and Weld counties, uncommon in Adams County, and rare in Boulder County (NDIS 2006). Burrowing owls are known to nest in Adams, Larimer, and Weld counties, including near the project area (Jones 1998 in Kingery). This species is known to occur in a prairie dog town located in the area of one of the proposed transit stations adjacent to the existing park and ride lot on U.S. 34 at SH 257. Burrowing owls have the potential to occur in any prairie dog town in the project area, especially prairie dog towns that are isolated from human disturbance. Ferruginous hawk The ferruginous hawk is the largest hawk in North America and is a state species of special concern. This species inhabits open prairie and desert habitats and is strongly associated with primary prey species such as ground squirrels, rabbits, and prairie dogs (Jasikoff 1982). Ferruginous hawks are relatively common winter residents in eastern Colorado, particularly in association with the black-tailed prairie dog (Beane 1996). Ferruginous hawks are rare to uncommon residents on the eastern plains of Colorado in the summer(Andrews and Righter • 1992). CDOW lists the ferruginous hawk as rare in Larimer Country and uncommon in Adams and Weld counties (NDIS 2006). This species has been known to breed in scattered locations in eastern Colorado, but not in the project area (Preston in Kingery 1998). Ferruginous hawks arc likely to occasionally forage within the project area, especially in prairie dog towns in winter. Black-necked stilt The black-necked stilt is a wading bird that inhabits the margins of lakes, ponds, marshes, and flooded grassy areas (Winternitz in Kingery 1998). Black-necked stilts are often found associated with American avocets and the two species may nest in mixed colonies (Winternitz in Kingery 1998). The black-necked stilt is a rare spring and fall migrant on the eastern plains of Colorado and occurs casually in northeastern Colorado during the breeding season (Andrews and Righter 1992). Black-necked stilts have been confirmed to breed at a few locations in northeastern Colorado including locations in Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties, including Fort Collins in • Larimer County (Andrews and Righter 1992; Winternitz in Kingery 1998). CDOW lists the 30 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • black-necked stilt as rare in Larimer County, with abundance unknown in Adams, Boulder, and Weld counties (NDIS 2006). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area due to limited suitable habitat. Great blue heron The great blue heron is a large, colonial nesting waterbird that inhabits reservoirs and rivers. Breeding colonies occur in groves of live or dead trees standing in or near reservoirs and rivers (CNDIS 2006). Great blue herons nest in close, congested communities called rookeries. They breed in Colorado from mid-March to August, and return to the same nest every year. This species has an extended nesting period that spans nearly 5 months from late March through July (Dexter in Kingery 1998), and potential disturbance to rookeries should be minimized during this critical breeding period. Double-crested cormorants (Phalcrocorax auritus) often nest in the same rookeries with great blue herons. Great blue herons are protected under the MBTA; however, there are no official guidelines for buffers around great blue heron nests within Colorado. CDOW maps great blue heron nesting areas with a 500-meter(0.31 mile) buffer(NDIS 2006). Land use in the area around Fossil Creek Reservoir is guided by the policies and principles presented in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Arca Plan (Fossil Creek Plan) adopted in 1998, amended in 1999, and amended again in 2000 (City of Fort Collins and Larimer County 1998). The Fossil Creek Plan establishes a recommended buffer of 250 meters (825 feet) around colonial nesting sites for great blue herons and black-crowned night herons. Other states have recommended permanent, year-round minimum protection areas (buffers) of 250 to 300 meters (820 to 984 feet) from the peripheries of colonies, with all human activities that are likely to cause colony abandonment being restricted in this buffer year-round (Quinn and Milner 2004). It has also been recommended that activities such as construction should not occur within 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) around a colony during the breeding season (Quinn and Milner 2004). Great blue heron rookeries occurring in the regional study area are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. Three great blue heron rookeries occur near proposed 1-25 improvements or near the proposed commuter rail alignment including: Fossil Creek Reservoir on the Big Thompson River about %4 mile west of I-25, St. Vrain Creek just west of I-25 at St. Vrain State Park, and Ish Reservoir just east of U.S. 287 (NDIS 2006). The rookery at St. 31 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Vrain State Park is also the largest breeding site for great egrets (Ardea alba) in Colorado (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). Reptiles and Amphibians Common gartersnake The common gartersnake is listed as a state species of special concern. The subspecies that occurs in Colorado has black and red sides with a pale yellow to white stripe down the center of the back. In Colorado, this species is found from northern Jefferson County and southern Boulder County northeast to Nebraska and Wyoming (Hammerson 1999). The common gartcrsnake inhabits the margins of streams, irrigation ditches, natural and artificial ponds, as well as open areas. The CDOW lists the common gartersnake as sparsely common in Boulder County and uncommon in Adams, Larimer, and Weld counties (NDIS 2006). In the project area, the common gartersnake is known to occur in riparian habitat in the drainages of Big Dry Creek, St. Vrain River, Big Thompson River, South Platte River, and Cache la Poudre River (Hammerson 1999). Other perennial streams and ponds in the project area provide potential habitat for this species, and this species would be expected to occur in suitable habitat. Midget faded rattlesnake One of two subspecies of western rattlesnake occurring in Colorado, the midget faded rattlesnake, occurs primarily in west-central Colorado and is listed as a state species of special concern. Among the smallest of the western rattlesnake subspecies, its maximum total length rarely exceeds 26 inches. Although it seems to avoid perennially wet habitats, it occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitats including grasslands, sandhills, mountain and semidesert scrublands, sagebrush, riparian vegetation, ph-ion-juniper woodlands, and open coniferous forests (Hammerson 1999). The midget faded rattlesnake occurs primarily in western Colorado; most rattlesnakes occurring in the project area belong to the more common western rattlesnake subspecies (Crotalus viridis viridis) rather than the midget faded rattlesnake subspecies (Hammerson 1999). This subspecies is unlikely to occur in the project area. Northern leopard frog The northern leopard frog prefers the banks and shallow portions of marshes, wet meadows, ponds, lakes, and streams particularly where rooted aquatic vegetation is present • (Hammerson 1999). The northern leopard frog is listed as a species of special concern by CDOW. This species is wide-ranging, occurring at elevations up to 11,000 feet. Amphibian 32 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • populations have declined both worldwide and locally in Colorado, for reasons not well known. Additional threats to the northern leopard frog are thought to include habitat loss, predation by fish, and competition from the nonnative bullfrog (Hammerson 1999). The sites in eastern Colorado where northern leopard frogs occur in greatest abundance are typically small, isolated reservoirs that have not been colonized by, or stocked with, bullfrogs or predatory fishes (Hammerson 1999). CDOW lists the northern leopard frog as locally common in Weld County and uncommon in Larimcr and Boulder counties (NDIS 2006). Within the project area, northern leopard frogs have been documented in the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, St. Vrain, and South Platte river drainages (Hammerson 1999). Fish Common shiner The common shiner is approximately 6 inches in length and is listed as a threatened species by CDOW. The common shiner inhabits streams of moderate gradient with cool, clear water, gravelly bottoms, and shady areas, and appears to be intolerant of silted habitats (Woodling 1985). Spawning occurs in early summer on gravel beds in flowing water(Baxter • and Stone 1995). The type of habitat preferred by this species is not common in Colorado where silt and sediment affect most streams (Woodling 1985). The common shiner is a native of the South Platte River Basin, and has been recorded near the project area in St. Vrain Creek at Hover Road, St. Vrain Creek at U.S. 287, St. Vrain Creek just upstream from confluence with Boulder Creek, the South Platte River at 31" Avenue, and Stearns Reservoir in Boulder County (CDOW 2005e). Plains minnow The plains minnow is native to Colorado, and is listed as endangered by CDOW. The preferred habitat of the plains minnow is main channels of streams with sandy bottoms and some current(Woodling 1985). It seems to prefer turbid water and is less common in clear streams (Baxter and Stone 1995). The spawning habitats of this species are not well known (Baxter and Stone 1995). In eastern Colorado, the plains minnow has been collected from Washington, Yuma, and Kiowa counties (Woodling 1985). Near the project area, CDOW fish sampling studies in 1996 documented the plains minnow in the Cache la Poudre River near Fort Collins (CDOW • 2005c); however, CDOW biologists have stated that this record is probably a misidentification 33 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO (Sherman, personal communication). This species is unlikely to occur in the regional study • area or in the project area. Brassy minnow The brassy minnow is native to Colorado and is listed as threatened by CDOW. The brassy minnow occupies cool, clear streams with abundant aquatic vegetation and with a mud or gravel substrate (Woodling 1985; Baxter and Stone 1995). Spawning occurs in late May or when water temperatures are between 16°C to 27°C (Baxter and Stone 1995). Past studies have found the brassy minnow in the South Platte River to be mainly restricted to portions of the mainstem river and most abundant in the eastern portion of the plains region (Probst 1982 cited in Woodling 1985). CDOW fish sampling studies between 1991 and 2002 recorded the brassy minnow near the project area in the Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, St. Vrain River, and South Platte River(CDOW 2005c), and this species would be expected to occur in any stream in suitable habitat. The brassy minnow was found in St. Vrain Creek at Highway 119 during CDOW fish sampling studies in 2006 (Crockett, pers. comm. 2006). Iowa darter The Iowa darter is a small fish measuring less than 3 inches long, and is listed as a state • species of special concern. The Iowa darter occurs in lakes with rooted aquatic vegetation and in streams with cool clear water, undercut banks, and vegetation extending from the bank into the water(Woodling 1985). Spawning occurs from late April to July (Baxter and Stone 1995). In Colorado, the species' distribution is generally limited to streams in northeastern Colorado and Elevenmile Reservoir in South Park, although they have been introduced to the upper Colorado River Basin (Woodling 1985). Iowa darters have been recorded at a few locations near the project area including within the Cache la Poudre River, Big Thompson River, and St. Vrain Creek(CDOW 2005c). Threats to the Iowa darter include habitat degradation resulting from siltation, pollution, and bank destabilization; the effects of urbanization; and predation by nonnative fish. Stonecat The stonecat is a small native catfish that is listed as a state species of special concern. The stonecat lives in streams with strong currents and typically hides under rubble, rocks, woody debris, or along sandbars during the day (Woodling 1985; Baxter and Stone 1995). This species also nests beneath rubble in fast-moving currents in June and July (Baxter and Stone • 34 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • 1995). Eastern Colorado streams, which have low flows, silt, and frequent dewatering, are not ideal habitat for this species (Woodling 1985). One specimen was collected from St. Vrain Creek near Longmont in 1984 (Woodling 1985). Near the project area, the stonecat has also been documented during CDOW surveys in 1994 in St. Vrain Creek at U.S. 287 and in St. Vrain Creek just upstream from the confluence with Boulder Creek (CDOW 2005c). Invertebrates Cylindrical papershell The cylindrical papershell is a freshwater mussel that inhabits mud and sands of small creeks. The cylindrical papershell is considered imperiled (CNHP rank S2) in Colorado and is designated as a state species of concern by the CDOW (CNHP 2005; CDOW 2005b). This species is known to occur in Boulder County (CNHP 2005). The presence of this species in the project area is unknown. Stonefly Mesocapnia fi-isonii is a stonefly that is known to occur in relatively few low elevation • streams near the southern Rocky Mountains of Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, and from Kansas to Texas. The stonefly emerges in winter and spends its larval stage in sediments beneath and adjacent to creeks (CNHP 2005). It is likely that this species was formerly widely distributed in Colorado but has undergone a reduction in range due to urban and agricultural development(CNHP 2005). In Colorado, this species is known to occur only in the Little Thompson River(CNHP 2005). In the project area, the stonefly is known to occur in the reach of the Little Thompson River that includes the crossing at U.S. 287 and the BNSF railroad (CNHP 2005). Sandhill fritillary The sandhill fritillary, a butterfly that is orange with black markings on the upperside and has rows of metallic silver spots on the underside of the wing, is considered imperiled to critically imperiled(CNHP rank S1S2)S2) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in wet meadows, bogs, and marshes (Opler et al. 1995). The larvae of the sandhill fritillary feed on violets (Viola sp.), while adults feed on nectar from composite flowers (Opler et al. 1995). The sandhill fritillary has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. • 1995). The sandhill fritillary has not been documented in the project area, but was recorded 35 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO east of Fort Collins in 1978 (CNHP 2005). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area • because suitable habitat is very limited. Arogos skipper This small butterfly is yellowish on the upperside and brown on the underside. The arogos skipper has declined throughout its range and is considered to be imperiled (CNHP rank S2) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in relatively undisturbed grasslands and prairies (Opler et al. 1995). The larvae feed on big bluestem and other grasses, while adults feed on nectar from native and introduced flowers (Opler et al. 1995). The arogos skipper has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the arogos skipper has been documented in grasslands south and west of Fort Collins, west of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area because suitable habitat is limited. Ottoe skipper This dull-colored butterfly occurs on the tallgrass prairie fragments along the foothills (Opler et al. 1995). The ottoe skipper has declined notably throughout its range and is considered imperiled (CNHP rank S2) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). The caterpillars feed on • little bluestem and other grasses, while adults feed on nectar from native prairie wildflowers (Opler et al. 1995). The ottoe skipper has been documented in Adams, Boulder, and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). The ottoe skipper has been documented west of Fort Collins (CNHP 2005), but is unlikely to occur in the project area due to a lack of suitable habitat. Dusted skipper This butterfly is gray-black on the upperside and gray with white dusting on the underside. The dusted skipper is considered to be imperiled (CNHP rank S2) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in grasslands, prairies, barrens, and old fields (Opler et al. 1995). The caterpillars of this species feed on little bluestem and big bluestem (Opler et al. 1995). The dusted skipper has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the dusted skipper has been documented in grasslands south and west of Fort Collins, west of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). This species is unlikely to occur in the project area because suitable habitat is limited. • 36 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Two-spotted skipper The two-spotted skipper is a small butterfly that inhabits marshes, bogs, wet streamsides, and wet sedge meadows (Opler et al. 1995). The two-spotted skipper is considered imperiled (CNHP rank S2) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). The caterpillars of this species feed on sedge (Carex trichocarpa), while adults feed on nectar from flowers (Opler et al. 1995). The two-spotted skipper has been documented in Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the two-spotted skipper was recorded in 1989 south of Fort Collins, east of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). Moss' elfin Moss' elfin is a small butterfly that is grayish brown to tan on the upperside and coppery brown to purplish brown on the underside. The Moss' elfin is considered to be vulnerable or imperiled (CNHP rank S2S3) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs on rocky outcrops, woody canyons, and cliffs (Opler ct al. 1995). The caterpillars of this species feed on stonecrop species in the Crassulacca family; the feeding habits of adults are not reported (Opler et al. 1995). The Moss' elfin has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 2005). The Moss' elfin is known to occur near the project area from a single record in Fort Collins (CNHP 2005). Rhesus skipper This small butterfly is dark brown on the upperside and greenish brown with dark spots on the underside. The rhesus skipper is considered vulnerable to imperiled (CNHP rank S2S3) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in native shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie (Opler ct al. 1995). The larvae of this species feed on blue grama, a native prairie grass, while adults feed on nectar from flowers including Drummond's milkvetch (Astragalus drummondii) (Opler et al. 1995). The rhesus skipper has been documented in Adams, Boulder, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the rhesus skipper was documented in 1993 from a site in the foothills west of Fort Collins (CNHP 2005). Cross-line skipper This small butterfly is bright brownish orange on the upperside and yellowish orange on • the underside. The cross-line skipper has declined throughout its range and is considered to be vulnerable (CNHP rank S3) within Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species occurs in native 37 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO tallgrass prairies (Opler et al. 1995). The larvae feed on little bluestem and other grasses, • while adults feed on nectar from white, pink, or purple flowers (Opler et al. 1995). The cross-line skipper has been documented in Adams, Boulder, and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). Near the project area, the cross-line skipper has been documented in grasslands northwest of Fort Collins (CNHP 2005). Modest sphinx moth The modest sphinx moth is considered vulnerable (CNHP rank S3) in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This species inhabits riparian habitats and moist mountainsides (Opler et al. 1995). The caterpillars of this species feed on poplar, aspen, cottonwood, and willow, while adults do not feed (Opler et al. 1995). The modest sphinx moth has been documented in Boulder and Larimer counties (Opler et al. 1995). The modest sphinx moth was recorded in 1989 near the project area, south of Fort Collins and east of U.S. 287 (CNHP 2005). Terrestrial Wildlife The project area is located along the base of the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains in the Great Plains ecosystem. The quality and connectivity of wildlife habitat in the project area is supported by the expanses of protected open space or otherwise undeveloped land, which preserves several habitat types, as well as movement corridors between different habitat areas. The following subsections describe big game, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic species that arc not considered to be"species of special concern" by the CDOW or the CNHP, but that that could be affected by the proposed project. A list of wildlife species (birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) known to occur in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder, Denver, Larimer, and Weld counties is located in Appendix B. Big Game Big game species occurring in the project area include American elk(Cervus elaphus), mule deer(Odocoileus hemionus), and white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus). The general distribution of each species and their occurrence in the project area are described below. Definitions of big game habitat categories are provided in Table 7. • 38 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMLR,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • American elk Elk occur in semi-open forests or forest edges adjacent to parks and meadows. In Colorado, elk range across the western two-thirds of the state, generally below 6,000 feet in elevation. American elk overall range extends east to I-25 in the area north of Highway 60 and south of Highway 392 (NDIS 2006). This is the area located generally south and east of Loveland, including the area surrounding Boyd Lake. All elk winter range, winter concentration areas, severe winter range, summer concentration areas, and migration corridors, as mapped by CDOW, are located more than 5 miles west of the project area (NDIS 2006). A section of the proposed commuter rail line from Loveland south to the Boulder/Larimer County line (approximately 10 miles) is mapped as within overall elk range. East-west movement of individuals through the project area typically occurs along riparian corridors, but may also occur in open grassland areas. Elk arc known to occasionally move through the project area along the Big Thompson River corridor at the proposed commuter rail alignment (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). Mule deer • Although most commonly found in upland or riparian shrublands, mule deer arc common throughout the project arca, and are known to occur within almost all available habitat types including open grasslands. Mule deer summer range is generally located east of 1-25 and west of the proposed commuter rail alignment (NDIS 2006). Mule deer winter range occurs in the foothills west of the project area and in the floodplains of the South Platte, St. Vrain, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers, east of I-25 (NDIS 2006). The South Platte, St. Vrain, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers also provide severe winter range for mule deer east of I-25 (NDIS 2006). Mule deer movement corridors in the project arca occur along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers, and St. Vrain Creek (Vierra, pers. comm. 2006; Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). The area around Ish Reservoir is also a movement corridor for mule deer(Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). • 39 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO White-tailed deer • White-tailed deer are less common than mule deer, and are known to occur along plains riparian corridors, especially when riparian corridors are close to irrigated agricultural lands (NDIS 2006). White-tailed deer concentration areas occur along the South Platte, St. Vrain, Little Thompson, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers(NDIS 2006). White-tailed deer movement corridors in the project area occur along the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson rivers, and St. Vrain Creek(Vierra,pers. comm. 2006; Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). The area around Ish Reservoir is also a movement corridor for white-tailed deer (Huwer,pers. comm. 2006). Table 7. Deer and elk habitat categories. Habitat Category Definition American elk overall range The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of an elk population. American elk summer concentration area Those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. American elk migration corridors A subjective indication of the general direction of the movments of migratory ungulate herds. Mule deer year-round range The area where mule deer commonly occur during all seasons. • Mule deer summer range That part of the range where 90 percent of the individuals are located between spring green up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range;in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. Winter range(American elk and mule deer) That part of the overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average 5 winters out of 10 from the first heavy snowfall to spring green up,or during a site-specific period of winter as defined for each DAU.* Winter concentration area(American elk and mule That part of the winter range where densities are at deer) least 200 percent greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10. Severe winter range(American elk and mule deer) That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the 2 worst winters out of 10. White-tailed deer concentration area Concentration areas are defined as corridors of riparian habitat along river or stream courses that support higher populations of white-tailed deer,serve as travel corridors,and are considered critical habitat for white- tailed deer. *A Data Analysis Unit(DAU)is an area in which a herd spends most of its time. DAUs are used to set population objectives for big game species in Colorado. Source:CDOW 2005d. • 40 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other Mammals Carnivores common in and near the project area include the coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). These species are typically observed in open grasslands and close to riparian corridors. Mink (Mustela vison) are widespread in riparian habitats in Colorado and were observed within the project area. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Fells concolor) may occasionally occur in the western portion of the project area, possibly along the proposed commuter rail alignment from Fort Collins south to Loveland (NDIS 2006). The project area is on the periphery of occupied range for both of these species (NDIS 2006). Mountain lions may occasionally move through the project area along the major drainages (Huwer, pers. comm. 2006). A variety of small mammals are found in various habitat types in and near the project area. Grassland species include the white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus/loridanus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). Small mammals associated with riparian and wetland habitats include the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), prairie vole(Microtus ochrogaster), and a variety of mice and shrews. Birds A wide variety of bird species use different habitat types in the project area for shelter, breeding, wintering, and foraging at various times during the year. Raptors Raptors commonly occurring in and near the project area include the red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Other raptors likely to occur near the project area include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and rough-legged hawk(Buteo lagopus) (NDIS 2006). Burrowing owls potentially occur in prairie dog colonies throughout the project area. Ferruginous hawks and burrowing owls are discussed in greater detail under Wildlife Species of Concern. Raptor nests in and near the project area were mapped in April 2005 and April 2006 and are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. Most raptor nests observed were unoccupied. The occupied nests were most commonly occupied by red-tailed hawk, • Swainson's hawk, or great horned owl. 41 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other migratory birds • The majority of the project area consists of mowed right-of-way, irrigated crops, and nonirrigated crops that are likely to provide habitat for birds such as the house sparrow, European starling, common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), Canada goose(Branca canadensis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and rock dove (NDIS 2006). These species are also present in urban and suburban areas. The cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) is abundant in the project area and frequently nests on manmade structures such as bridges and highway overpasses. Western kingbirds (Tyrannus verticalis) arc common in riparian areas in the project area. Common birds in native or uncultivated grasslands include the vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodratnus savannarum), horned lark(Eremophila alpestris), and lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) (NDIS 2006). Wetland habitats typically support the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), while riparian vegetation supports the northern oriole (Icterus galbula), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), yellow warbler(Dendroica petechia), and American robin (Turdus migratorius). Shorebirds such as the killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) and American avocet(Recurvirostra americana) are likely to be common along the lakes and ponds near the project area (NDIS 2006). Open water bodies near the project area provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of waterfowl species such as the mallard (Anas platvrhyncos), pintail (Anas acuta bahamensis), and Canada goose(NDIS 2006). The American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) is a common summer resident on large reservoirs on the eastern plains. American white pelican foraging habitat includes sections of the Big Thompson, Little Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers in and near the project area (NDIS 2006). A comprehensive list of bird species known to occur in the regional study area is found in Appendix B. Reptiles and Amphibians The diverse and relatively undisturbed habitats within the project area have the potential to support a wide variety of reptiles and amphibians. Common reptiles in grassland areas are • likely to include the bullsnake(Pituophis melanoleucus), yellow-bellied racer(Coluber 42 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • constrictor), and western rattlesnake. The plains gartersnake (Thamnophis radix) and western painted turtle (Chrysemys pieta bellii) are common in wetland and open water habitats. Also, the lesser earless lizard (Holbrookia maculata) may be found in open grasslands such as prairie dog towns (Hammerson 1999; NDIS 2006). Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentia) have also been documented to occur in the project area (Hammerson 1999). Two state species of special concern, the common gartersnake and the midget faded rattlesnake, may also be found in the project area and are addressed under Wildlife Species of Concern (NDIS 2006). Amphibians likely to occur include the western chorus frog(Pseudacris triserata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), Woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousei), plains spadefoot(Spea bombifrons), and tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum). The northern leopard frog, a state species of special concern, may also occur in the project area (NDIS 2006) and is described under Wildlife Species of Concern. Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors The existing lanes of 1-25 already provide a substantial barrier to wildlife movements. Wildlife crossings typically occur near riparian corridors because riparian areas provide a • natural movement pathway for wildlife and bridges and culverts often provide a way for wildlife to cross beneath the highway. Currently, the BNSF railway and the proposed commuter rail alignment are not major obstacles to wildlife movement due to the sporadic nature of fencing along the alignment, the small size of the fences (three strand barbed wire), and relatively low frequency of rail traffic. Wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors were identified based on input from CDOW staff, review of road kill data collected by CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol (from 1993 to 2004), and field review (refer to Table 8 and Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). Additional data was opportunistically collected by CDOT maintenance crews from 2004 to 2007. • 43 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 ES ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 8. Summary of wildlife crossing areas identified in the project area. Wildlife Wildlife Usage Existing Structure Crossing Area Cache la Poudre The section of 1-25 from SH 14 south to SH 392 is used as a Multiple-span bridges River at I-25 crossing area by deer and other wildlife,as shown by the northbound(NB)and relatively high number of wildlife collisions in this area, southbound(SB). The and as reported by CDOW staff(Vierra,pers.comm.2006). existing bridges provide good passage for wildlife. Fossil Creek at No data is available for collisions at the railway,but a few Single-span bridge. The the BNSF collisions have been recorded on U.S. 287 near Fossil existing bridge over the creek alignment Creek,which is less than %mile downstream from the appears to provide good railway crossing. crossing opportunities. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Thompson River in Multiple-span bridge. The River at BNSF this area is a movement corridor for deer, elk,and other existing bridge provides good alignment wildlife(Vierra,pers. comm. 2006; I luwer,pers. comm. passage for wildlife. 2006). Relatively few wildlife collisions have been documented at U.S. 287 near this location. Big Thompson CDOW biologists indicated that the Big Thompson River in Multiple-span bridges(NB, River at 1-25 this area is a movement corridor for deer and other wildlife SB, and service road). The (Huwer,pers. comm. 2006). The section of 1-25 extending existing bridges are adequately about 3 miles north and south of the Big Thompson River is sized for deer and other used as a crossing site by wildlife,as indicated by the wildlife. relatively high number of wildlife collisions recorded in this area. Little The Little Thompson River is a movement corridor for deer Multiple-span bridge. The Thompson and other wildlife(Huwer,pers. comm.2006). Colorado existing bridge is adequately River at BNSF State Patrol data shows that several collisions have been sized for deer and other • alignment documented along U.S. 287 about 2 miles to the west. wildlife. Little The Little Thompson River is a movement corridor for deer Multiple-span bridges(NB, Thompson and other wildlife(I luwer,pers. comm. 2006). CSP data SB,and service road). The River at 1-25 shows that several collisions have been documented along existing bridges are adequately I-25 near the Little Thompson River. sized for deer and other wildlife. Ish Reservoir CDOW biologists indicated that a deer crossing problem No major structures, crossings Area occurs along U.S.287 west of Ish Reservoir(Huwer,pers. occur at grade. comm.2006). CSP collision data indicates that deer,elk, and coyote have been killed crossing this section of U.S. 287. The BNSF rail alignment passes to the east of Ish Reservoir,about 1.5 miles to the east of U.S. 287. Wildlife crossings of the railway likely occur at a similar rate as U.S. 287. 1-25 between CSP collision data shows that deer and other wildlife have Concrete box culvert at North Little been killed along the section of 1-25 between the Little Creek,adequate for small-and Thompson Thompson River and St. Vrain Creek. The land medium-sized mammals; River and St. surrounding 1-25 in this area is mostly open and inadequate for deer and larger Vrain Creek agricultural,and wildlife are killed when attempting to mammals. cross at grade. St. Vrain Creek CDOW biologists reported that St. Vrain Creek serves as a Multiple-span bridge. The at SH 119 movement corridor for deer and other wildlife(Huwer, existing wildlife passage under pers. comm.2006),and a broad,open area occurs at this 511 119 at St. Vrain Creek is location on both sides of SI 1119 connecting undeveloped undersized for deer due to low land along St. Vrain and Boulder creeks to St. Vrain State vertical clearance,but is large Park to the north and providing a natural movement enough for small-and corridor for wildlife. medium-sized mammals. • 44 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Wildlife Wildlife Usage Existing Structure Crossing Area St.Vrain Creek CDOW biologists reported that St.Vrain Creek serves as a Multiple-span bridge(NB, SB, at 1-25 movement corridor for deer and other wildlife(1luwer, and service road). The pers.comm.2006). CSP collision data shows that deer and existing wildlife passage under other wildlife have been killed crossing 1-25 near St.Vrain 1-25 is adequately sized for Creek. This crossing is used by deer,as indicated by tracks deer and other wildlife. observed in the field. 1-25 west of CSP collision data indicate that deer and other wildlife are No major structures. Firestone and occasionally killed along a 3-mile section of 1-25 west of Frederick Firestone and Frederick. The surrounding area is mostly open and agricultural,and wildlife are killed when attempting to cross at grade. Commuter rail The rail alignment follows Weld County Road 7 about I No major structures. alignment west mile west of 1-25. No wildlife collision data is available for of Firestone and this area,but wildlife movements probably are similar to 1- Frederick 25 west of Firestone and Frederick,as described above. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at 1-25 could be a Concrete box culvert; at 1-25 potential wildlife crossing area,but collision data indicates adequately sized for small- that only occasional collisions with wildlife occur in this and medium-sized mammals. area and CDOW did not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Little Dry Creek Field review indicated Little Dry Creek at the commuter None,but no existing rail line at Commuter rail alignment could be a potential wildlife movement area, is present,so no movement Rail Alignment but no CSP data is available for this area and CDOW did barriers exist in this area. not identify Little Dry Creek as a movement corridor. Big Dry Creek CSP collision data show a few collisions on 1-25 near Big Multiple-span bridge;the • at 1-25 Dry Creek,but CDOW did not identify this area as a existing bridge is adequately movement corridor. sized for deer and other wildlife. • 45 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 7. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study al Area - Northern Region. LEGEND ` ‘ Al Study Corridors Road Kill Data "/ Highways Coyote Q Cities & Towns in Project Area 0 Deer /\/ Arterial Roads Elk —es, Regional Study Area • Fox City Boundaries • Raccoon •4—lis Wildlife Crossing Area (Source: ERO 2006) Unknown ' Wellington '`-.,, / ‘4%\:\ 1 ---' / Pierce s. IP �esJ \ Fort Collins \ 0III i- — �- i ' Ault \ i 1-----------E----\ Timnath a Severance Eaton , `i► I f acs U C reek • i Re+er+ar 1 t Windsor ; ,, 1. I Lucerne i ii Greeley � Hy ' 4� ----1— - l- v . q,,r Garden City, i Loveland 'a 1 Evans n•.ff[ 1, ` , V Matt lime Figure 8 El La Salle 85 /1 Johnstown N i 2 I „� _ Figure 7 0 1 3 4 5 h` North 1-25 EIS Wildlife ' ' ' Miles i a Milliken Road Kill Data and Wildlife Crossings - • _ �� 46 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO IIFigure 8. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area - Central Region. • r , -- OV VTTR.fJUT ' 92. LEGEND Lucerne ^, Study Corridors Road Kill Data / s/ Highways • Coyote t a Cities &Towns in Project Area • Deer \N Greeley /N./ Arterial Roads • Elk a< l0 Regional Study Area • Foxlimemmogr t City Boundaries • Raccoon — Garden City T J ♦—* Wildlife Crossing Area (Source: ERO 2006) Unknown Evans 1 t Matchllne Figure 7 La Salle �" Campion Johnstown I a3 -7 I a Milliken o IF diejba F Berthoud I i 4,1a Gilcrest e �h / I 0 o I Meader ?: ' . / Platteville Longmont .,/� re i / Vollmar 0 tie / II I . III 0 Firestone a Niwot ° Frederick ' N:, I _ r a Dacono Fort Lupton q 0 Gunbarrel 0 Erie /almont .ir=- 1 U = Wattenberg q Matchline Figure 9 Lafayette _ _( •i • /. I 59 - Bright n r l Figure 8 North 1-25 EIS Wildlife I0 '1 2 3 41 I Miles AA Road Kill Data and Wildlife Crossings 47 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Figure 9. Roadkill and Wildlife Crossing Areas, North I-25 EIS Regional Study Ill Area - Southern Region. LEGEND r lone4 Vollmar ., N Study Corridors Road Kill Data ' / Highways Coyote A/ Firestone 11 O Cities & Towns in Project Area •I • Deer v "/ Arterial Roads Niwot • Elk ii O Frederick H:; L 1 Regional Study Area • Fox _ I o —, I City Boundaries II� gg • Raccoon Dacono Fort Lupton 4-•1 Wildlife Crossing Area (Soorcebekr012006) Unknown b.l the re\ / O Valmont LI --�'� ---it - Wattenberg Matchline Figure 8 1 3s ulder r t+ /'L.==Y.,...inn_ 1,u ` o f Lafayette________� `� \ Louisville �--- 4. Brighton P •�.. / 1- Superior - • Il •.. Eastlake Broomfield 2 `' Hender ic.21 .. 1 11 .,-•\ Northglenn _ c_�► v _ F/ Thornton I • f , , ) -1, \ ti i 1\ r / 1F i - - �_ i Denver I / r 6 , II / ALT • Si0 I. t .1 ' - u[ _ , • ,,, ® M' ._r/i'mr\‘, _fir< \--A N Figure 9_/ \0 1 2 3 4 5 A North 1-25 EIS Wildlife Illf-- I r r ' r 1 Miles i Road Kill Data and Wildlife Crossings • 48 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Several sensitive wildlife habitat areas were identified during field work(Table 9). These areas were identified as sensitive wildlife habitat because: • They are wildlife crossing areas; • They provide known habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species as defined by the USFWS or CDOW; • They contain or arc adjacent to protected lands such as designated open space, state parks, or state wildlife areas; or • They provide habitat for numerous sensitive species. Table 9. Sensitive wildlife habitats in the regional study area. Sensitive Wildlife Comments Habitat Area Cache la Poudre River Known occurrences of brassy minnow and Iowa darter;bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage;white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area:wildlife movement corridor Fossil Creek Reservoir Bald eagle winter roost occurs at reservoir Big Thompson River Possible occurrence of Preble's and Iowa darter;bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage;white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area;wildlife movement corridor; Big Thompson State • Wildlife Area occurs just west of 1-25 Little Thompson River Possible occurrence of Preble's,bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage, white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area,wildlife movement corridor,CNHP Potential Conservation Area at U.S. 287 Ish Reservoir and Great blue heron rookery;wildlife crossing area at U.S.287 surrounding area St. Vrain Creek Bald eagle winter roost west of 1-25;bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage:known occurrences of common shiner,brassy minnow, Iowa darter,and stonecat;white-tailed deer winter range and concentration area; wildlife movement corridor;St. Vrain State Park occurs just west of 1-25 South Platte River Bald eagle winter concentration and summer forage,known occurrences of common shiner and brassy minnow,wildlife movement corridor Sources:NDIS 2006;CNHP 2005;CDOW 2005c:USFWS 2005b. Aquatic Resources The ditches, streams, and water bodies in the project area support a wide variety of aquatic insects, macroinvertebratcs, and fish. Fish species documented in lakes, rivers, and streams in or near the project area are provided in Appendix C. Common fish species in creeks and streams in the project area include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Johnny darter(Etheostoma nigrum), longnose sucker(Catostomus catostomus), longnose dace(Rhinichthys cataractae), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and white sucker(Catostomus commersoni). • Several rare fish species (including the state endangered common shiner and brassy minnow, and state species of concern Iowa darter and stonecat), are known to occur in or near 49 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO the project area (CDOW 2005c). Thcsc sensitive species are addressed in greater detail under Wildlife Species of Concern. Common aquatic insects include the larvae of the blackfly (Simulium slossonae), midge (Chironomidae spp.), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), and damselfly (suborder Zygoptera); caddisfly (Spicipalpia sp.); and cranefly (Tipula oleraceae). Snails, crayfish, and other macroinvcrtebrates occurring in aquatic environments in the project area provide an important source of prey for other fish, waterfowl, and mammal species. The CNHP has designated a Potential Conservation Area (PCA) that includes the Little Thompson River at U.S. 287. This reach of the Little Thompson River provides habitat for a number of native fish and a variety of mayflies, caddisflies, and stone lies compared with other Front Range streams (CNHP 2005). Six fish species including creek chub, longnose dace, fathead minnow, longnose sucker, white sucker and green sunfish were documented in the Little Thompson on May 22, 2001 (CNHP, 2005). Results of this survey are similar to those conducted by the Colorado Division of Wildlife in 1982 and 1997. All species captured are native and common in streams along the Front Range corridor. Additionally, only a few fish out of several hundred captured showed signs of parasites or infection, indicating a healthy • community (CNHP, 2005). One species of stoncfly (Mesocapnia frisonii) is not known to occur anywhere else in Colorado (CNHP 2005). This stonefly species is addressed in more detail under Wildlife Species of Concern. Potential Effects of the Proposed Project Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species The proposed project would result in impacts to potential Preble's habitat. The black- footed ferret and Mexican spotted owl would not be affected by the proposed project because they do not occur in the project area. Effects to Platte River species in Nebraska (whooping crane, least tern, Eskimo curlew, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, or western prairie fringed orchid) due to depletions are not addressed because no depletions are expected as a result of the project. As currently proposed, the project would not result in depletions because: 1. Water quality ponds would be dry facilities and would release detained water within 40 hours; therefore, they would not result in discernable water loss via evaporation. 2. Water used for dust abatement would be obtained from municipal sources that • have previously undergone depletions consultations. 50 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • 3. Wetland mitigation would be at a 1:1 ratio; therefore, there would be no additional water loss via transpiration. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Temporary disturbance to riparian habitat during bridge replacement would affect potential Preble's habitat near the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers at 1-25. Direct effects to Preble's could include loss of habitat, mortality from crushing by construction equipment, or disruption of hibernation during winter. Any new street lights near bridges could increase susceptibility of Preble's to predation. Indirect effects could include increased habitat fragmentation and decreased use of the project area as a movement corridor due to increased width of the 1-25 bridge crossings of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Other Federally Protected Species Bald Eagle Types of potential impacts to bald eagles include disturbance of nests, disturbance of winter night roosts, and loss of potential foraging habitat. Current data indicate that no active nests occur within '/z mile of the project components as • of the 2006/2007 breeding season; however, several bald eagle nests are known to occur near the project area. New breeding pairs of bald eagles could construct nests within '/z mile of the project area in the future, or a pair of eagles using one of the existing nests could relocate to a new nest closer to the project area. If construction activities occur within '/2 mile of an active nest during the courting or breeding season, effects could include behavioral disturbance and potential nest abandonment. The roost located at Fossil Creek Reservoir would not be adversely affected by the highway components because the proposed work in this area consists of upgrading an interchange and frontage roads, and because the roost is separated from the highway by existing and proposed development. New lighting at the intersection could either increase light pollution at the roost or, depending on design, could decrease affects of light on the roost. The roost area is already heavily impacted by light pollution and eagles have likely acclimated to the existing disturbance. The Package A transit components could affect the bald eagle roost on St. Vrain Creek. The proposed rail alignment from Longmont to Denver would run parallel to SH 119 on the • north side of the highway, crossing St. Vrain Creek via a new bridge north of SH 119. Although it is unlikely that bald eagles actually roost immediately adjacent to SH 119 (a busy highway), the loss of riparian habitat in this area would reduce the amount of available roosting 51 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO habitat further downstream. Bald eagle roosting areas change from year to year, and new • roosting areas could become established or existing roosts could be abandoned by the time of construction, so effects described above should be considered representative of effects that could occur. Bald eagles frequently forage in prairie dog colonies and riparian areas along major streams and rivers in the regional study area, especially in winter. Long-term impacts from road widening or other project components could include loss of foraging habitat or displacement of eagles from foraging habitat. For the purposes of determining impacts to bald eagles from loss of important foraging habitat,the most important foraging habitat is assumed to consist of prairie dog colonies or open water within 3 miles of a nest or communal winter night roost. No large bodies of open water such as lakes or reservoirs would be affected by the proposed project. Table 1O shows expected impacts to important bald eagle foraging habitat. Table 10. Summary of effects to important bald eagle foraging habitat within 3 miles of nests and roosts. Nest or Roost within 3 Prairie dogs Open water Important Package A Package B miles of project area within 3- within 3-mile foraging impacts to impacts to mile buffer buffer(acres) habitat within prairie dogs prairie dogs • (acres)' 3 miles within 3-mile within 3-mile (acres)2 buffer3 buffer3 Fossil Creek 846 2,169 3,015 28 38 Reservoir/Timnath roost; Windsor nest Longmont/St.Vrain nest; 824 1,355 2,179 7.8 2.0 Delcamino/Boulder Creek nest;St. Vrain/Boulder Creek roasts Berthoud nest 0 1,621 1,621 0 0 Thornton nest 1,956 424. 2,381 6.7 5.5 Total 3,626 5,569 9,195 42 45 'Prairie dogs mapped by CDOW 2002,not field verified. 'Prairie dogs(acres)+Open water(acres). 'Prairie dogs mapped by ERO in 2006. impacts within project footprint. Wildlife Species of Concern Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog Prairie dogs occurring within the project area will need to be relocated,removed, or humanely euthanized according to CDOT's prairie dog policy (CDOT 2005). Implementation of CDOT's prairie dog policy will prevent black-tailed prairie dogs being crushed by machinery or buried in their burrows during construction. Prairie dogs could also be indirectly • affected by loss of habitat within the highway right-of-way as a result of construction and by 52 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • habitat fragmentation. Some areas temporarily disturbed during construction would likely be recolonized by prairie dogs. Swift fox Direct effects to swift fox could include loss of foraging habitat and displacement during and after construction. Potential habitat for swift fox in the project area is low quality and is on the fringes of the occupied range for this species. Townsend's big-eared bat Direct effects to Townsend's big-eared bat could include loss of foraging habitat and potential displacement from foraging habitat during construction. No caves or mines that could provide roosting or hibernation sites would be affected. Birds Western burrowing owl The proposed project would affect prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. No work will occur in prairie dog towns while burrowing owls are present, thus avoiding direct • affects to burrowing owls. Work will either occur outside the time the owls are present in Colorado from March Ito October 31 (Craig 2002), or prairie dog towns will be surveyed prior to construction to confirm that the owls are not present. No burrowing owls arc known to nest within the project area. Ferruginous hawk Potential effects to ferruginous hawks include loss of winter foraging habitat during and after construction, especially if prairie dog colonies are affected. No ferruginous hawk nesting habitat would be disturbed. Black-necked stilt Potential impacts to the black-necked stilt are unlikely because this species is unlikely to occur in the project area. Great blue heron The Package A transit components could result in disturbance within the 500-meter(0.31 mile) buffer around a great blue heron nesting area at Ish Reservoir. The 0.31-mile buffer is based on recommendations by CDOW (NDIS 2006). No impacts arc expected to occur within • the buffers around other great blue heron nesting areas. No direct impacts to great blue heron nesting areas would occur. Great blue herons could be affected by loss of foraging habitat in wetland and riparian areas. Indirect effects include noise, light, and human encroachment 53 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO within this buffer during nesting season, which is approximately March 15 through July 31. • Effects could include nest abandonment or reduced nesting success. Impacts to great blue heron foraging areas would be similar to impacts for other riparian and aquatic species. Reptiles and Amphibians Common gartersnake The proposed project would affect habitat for common gartersnakes. This species could be affected by loss or fragmentation of riparian areas and wetlands as a result of construction. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Indirect effects include habitat fragmentation and reduced movement between habitat patches located on opposite sides of new or widened bridges or culverts. Indirect effects to this species could result from temporary declines in water quality from the proposed project. Midget faded rattlesnake Impacts to midget faded rattlesnake arc unlikely because this species does not occur in the project area. Northern leopard frog The proposed project would affect habitat for northern leopard frogs. This species could be • affected by loss or fragmentation of riparian areas and wetlands as a result of construction. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Indirect effects include habitat fragmentation and reduced movement between habitat patches located on opposite sides of new or widened bridges or culverts. Indirect effects to this species could result from temporary declines in water quality from the project. Fish Plains minnow The plains minnow is unlikely to be affected by the proposed project because it does not occur in the project area. Common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat The proposed project could affect habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species such as the common shiner, brassy minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat. Potential adverse effects to these species during construction include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species (Cordone and Kelley 1961). Working directly in streams could 5 increase sediment loads, which could change water temperature. Working directly in streams 54 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO could also interfere with seasonal movements of sensitive fish species. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction BMPs. Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, deicer, and the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials would increase, which could affect these species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Construction of new water quality ponds could result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Construction of new culverts or lengthening of existing culverts would adversely affect sensitive fish species by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat could be improved through the replacement of existing culverts with more numerous culverts or free-spanning bridges. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit sensitive fish species. Invertebrates Cylindrical papershell and stonefly Types of potential impacts to aquatic invertebrates from the proposed project would be • similar to impacts to sensitive fish species. Potential adverse effects to these species during construction could include temporary loss of habitat during construction of piers, bridges, culverts, and other work within streams. Increased erosion during construction could result in increased sediment loads, which would adversely affect sensitive aquatic species. Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, including deicer, and would increase the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials, which could affect these species. Construction of new water quality ponds could result in an indirect benefit to state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic invertebrates by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Butterflies and moths The sandhill fritillary, Argos skipper, Ottoe skipper, and dusted skipper would not be affected by the proposed project because they are unlikely to occur in the project area. Impacts to the two-spotted skipper, Moss' elfin, rhesus skipper, cross-line skipper, and modest sphinx moth could occur, but limited habitat for these species occurs in the project area. Any loss of native prairie could result in loss of habitat for these species. • 55 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Terrestrial Wildlife • Big Game Direct effects to big game species such as mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk could include displacement during construction and disturbance from increased light and human activity near the project area. The most substantial impacts to big game species would result from habitat fragmentation, disruption of movement corridors, and potential increases in collisions with vehicles as described below under Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors. Other Mammals The project could result in effects to other mammals from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway or railway rights-of-way. Potential direct effects of the proposed project would include loss of habitat, especially grassland habitat; dispersal of individuals to new territories, disruption of migration and other seasonal movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation due to increased distance between habitat on either side of the highway. Potential impacts to wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors are described in more detail below under Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors. Birds Raptors Direct effects to raptors could include loss of highway right-of-way hunting habitat. Loss of hunting habitat would most likely effect common, human-tolerant species such as red-tailed hawks and American kestrels. Raptors requiring large trees for nesting, or perching would be temporarily affected where trees could be cut down or where trees are located close to highway or railway improvements. Indirect effects include increased potential for raptor collisions with vehicles as a result of increased traffic, behavioral disturbance induced by encroachment of human activities within 0.25 to 0.33 mile of nests (Craig 2002), increased noise, and increased disturbance from vehicle lights. Some behavioral disturbance could be temporary as raptors adapt to the changed environment. Other migratory birds Potential effects to migratory birds from the proposed project would include habitat loss, displacement during construction, increased habitat fragmentation, and destruction of nests • during construction. A temporary loss of habitat would occur when grassy areas are cleared 56 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • and grubbed during construction, or when structures used for nesting are replaced. Ground- nesting birds would likely be most affected because the grasslands would be the habitat most affected by the project. Migratory birds using riparian areas could be temporarily displaced during bridge widening and replacement activities, and their nests could be disturbed or destroyed. Cliff swallows, which often nest on bridges and overpasses, could be directly affected by nest destruction or nesting disturbance during bridge replacement. Most direct impacts to nests will be avoided by implementing timing restrictions and other mitigation measures described in the mitigation section. Indirect effects include increased disturbance due to noise and light from vehicles, and increased mortality from collisions with vehicles. Reptiles and Amphibians The proposed project could affect habitat for reptiles and amphibians. In general, effects to reptiles and amphibians would result from disturbance of degraded habitat in areas such as highway rights-of-way. Direct effects could include mortality from being crushed by equipment during construction. Other potential effects could include loss of grasslands, riparian and wetland habitat; dispersal of individuals to new territories, disruption of migration • and other seasonal movements, especially along riparian corridors; and increased mortality from collisions with automobiles. Potential indirect and long-term effects would include increased habitat fragmentation. Habitat loss for reptiles and amphibians could also result if roadside ditches are piped or drained as a direct result of the project or as a result of increasing urbanization indirectly related to the project. Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors Roads and transportation corridors have many potential effects on wildlife, including habitat fragmentation, reduced access to habitat, population fragmentation and isolation, disruption of dispersal patterns, and mortality from collisions with vehicles (Jackson 2000). Movement corridors for big game and other wildlife arc typically located along riparian corridors and stream crossings in the project area, because bridges and culverts at these locations provide an opportunity for wildlife to cross under the highway or railway. Underpasses and culverts are used by many species of wildlife during seasonal migrations, or to reach suitable habitat on the other side of the highway or railway (Barnum 2003). Without access to crossing sites such as culverts or bridges, wildlife either avoid crossing, resulting in isolation from suitable habitat, or risk being killed by vehicles while attempting to cross the • highway. 57 WILDLIFE TLCHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EN ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Big game movement corridors in riparian areas would be temporarily disrupted during • bridge widening and replacement activities. Many species are more likely to use underpasses that are wider or more open (Jackson and Griffin 2000; Barnum 2003). Replacement of culverts or bridges with larger culverts or bridges could benefit wildlife over the long term by creating wider movement corridors and increasing the overall openness ratio. East-west movements of deer and other mammals arc already limited by the existing lanes of I-25, but the addition of new general purpose lanes could result in increased mortality due to collisions with vehicles. Construction of new retaining walls would also create barriers to wildlife movements across the highway, and could change wildlife crossing locations if the current at- grade crossing sites are blocked by walls (Barnum 2003). Collisions with trains have been documented as a source of mortality for wildlife, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk(Wells et al. 1999). Therefore, the existing BNSF railway probably results in some mortality to wildlife. Currently, the BNSF railway and the proposed commuter rail alignment are not major obstacles to wildlife movement due to the sporadic nature of fencing along the alignment, the small size of the fences (three-strand barbed wire), and relatively low frequency of rail traffic. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) would • install 6-foot-high chain link fences along the entire commuter rail corridor for safety purposes. Fences on both sides of rail alignments can trap wildlife between walls without any escape route, resulting in mortality. Construction of new retaining walls along the rail alignment would also create new barriers to wildlife movement. Where retaining walls are present, the fences would be located along the top of the retaining wall. Implementation of the Package A transit alternatives would create a substantial barrier to wildlife movement because of the new fences and retaining walls, and would result in habitat fragmentation by isolating patches of wildlife habitat on opposite sides of the rail alignment. Retaining walls and fences typically funnel wildlife movements toward existing underpasses and crossing sites (Barnum 2003). Bridges and culverts would therefore become much more important for wildlife movement after construction of the proposed commuter rail. Sensitive Wildlife Habitats Impacts to sensitive wildlife habitats could include loss of wildlife habitat, disruption of wildlife movement corridors, potential loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species such as Preble's and bald eagle, and potential indirect effects to aquatic species. Potential effects are described under the impact sections for federally listed threatened, endangered, and • candidate species; wildlife species of concern; terrestrial wildlife; and aquatic resources. 58 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Aquatic Resources Potential impacts to other aquatic species would be similar to the impacts previously described for sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrates, and could include temporary loss of habitat due to work within streams, increased sediment loads during construction, and interference with seasonal movements. These impacts would be short-term and would be mitigated through use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Increases in traffic could result in increased contaminants in roadway runoff, including deicer, and would increase the risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials, which could affect aquatic species. Wider bridges would cause greater shading of streams, potentially altering stream temperature. New stations and parking lots would increase impervious surface area, leading to increased runoff to nearby streams. Construction of new water quality ponds could result in an indirect benefit to aquatic resources by improving water quality in streams and water bodies downstream. Construction of new culverts or lengthening existing culverts would adversely affect fish by increasing shading or replacing natural streambed with concrete. Stream habitat would be improved • through the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts or free-spanning bridges. Removal or redesign of drops that act as barriers would also benefit fish. Mitigation and Recommendations This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife would be incorporated into the proposed project, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. The proposed project area falls within the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative. In January 2004, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and public and private partners agreed on a "Shortgrass Prairie Initiative" as an alternative way to address species impacts in the eastern third of the state. The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative (initiative) provides programmatic clearance for CDOT activities on the existing road network in the eastern third of Colorado for the next 20 years. Covered • transportation projects include; I) bridge repairs for all existing bridges, 2) approximately 4,310 miles of resurfacing/overlays and accompanying shoulder improvements, 3) 59 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO maintenance along existing transportation corridors, and 4) safety, reconstruction, capacity and • other transportation improvements (USFWS 2004b, Venner 2001). The Biological Assessment(BA) includes all of 1-25 within Colorado. A Biological Opinion (BO) was issued by the USFWS, which covers the bald eagle and 29 species of concern (USFWS 2003b). The BO includes a list of measures to minimize effects to the bald eagle, including protecting off-site shortgrass prairie habitat and implementation of on-site BMPs. The BO also includes proposed conservation measures for sensitive, nonlisted species including black-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, native fish and mussels (including brassy minnow, common shiner, plains minnow, and cylindrical papershell), and northern leopard frog. The BO lists BMPs for each of these species and provides that if any of these species are listed, the appropriate protective measures will be incorporated into the BO. The BO was amended in February 2008 to address the change in status for the bald eagle (USFWS 2008). The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative does not cover Preble's because CDOT is engaging in a separate consultation for this species in Douglas and El Paso counties (USFWS 2003 b). Other species explicitly not covered in the BO include black-footed ferret and Ute ladies tresses' orchid. • Specific mitigation recommendations, in addition to those in the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, are described below. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse • Mitigation measures for occupied Preble's habitat may be required as part of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS for impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species. Mitigation measures would focus on avoidance and minimization of impacts during construction. Avoidance and minimization measures include limiting timing of construction to Preble's inactive season (November through April) or use of visible barriers to limit the area of construction. • If culverts in Preble's habitat arc replaced or upgraded, the new culverts could incorporate ledges to facilitate small mammal passage. • Where impacts are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation would be provided through replacement with suitable habitat for Preble's. Mitigation measures for Preblc's could be combined with wetlands mitigation. Wetland mitigation measures may also replace any impacts to suitable unoccupied Preble's habitat. • 60 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMI IIiLD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other Federally Protected Species Bald Eagle • A raptor nest survey (to include bald eagles) would be conducted prior to construction to identify bald eagle nests near the project area. If an active bald eagle nest is found within '/z mile of the project area, the buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by CDOW (no human encroachment within '/ mile of the nest from November 15 to July 31) would be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. • No construction would occur within '/a mile of active nocturnal roosts between November 15 and March 15. If perch or roost trees are removed during construction, they would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with cottonwood trees. • Mitigation for wetland impacts would also provide mitigation for impacts to riparian habitats used for foraging by bald eagles. Wildlife Species of Concern Black-tailed Prairie Dog Prairie dog distribution in the project area is likely to change between the time field surveys were conducted and the time construction occurs, so prairie dog colonies would likely need to be resurveyed prior to construction. • In areas where avoidance of prairie dogs is not possible, CDOT would follow its guidelines for mitigating impacts. CDOT's prairie dog guidelines include: • CDOT projects will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts to prairie dog colonies greater than 2 acres in area. • If a colony is less than two acres, but has the potential to expand into areas that are currently inactive (i.e., not constrained), the available and accessible habitat will be the determining size of the area to be considered. • In order to foster a heightened sense of CDOT's ecological stewardship by the public, projects involving towns less than 2 acres in area will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, which may include the relocation of prairie dogs, so long as doing so will not increase the impacts to other resources (e.g., wetlands, historical properties, environmental justice issues, archeological sites, etc.) and is not cost prohibitive. • The area of prairie dog towns that will be affected by a project will be calculated before construction begins. • Relocation efforts for prairie dog towns greater than two acres shall be conducted in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations. • • If a relocation site cannot be located for towns larger than two acres, the prairie dogs will be captured and donated to raptor rehabilitation facilities, or turned over to the USFWS for the black-footed ferret reintroduction program. 61 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LA RIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • At no time will CDOT authorize earth-moving activities that result in the burying of • living prairie dogs. If needed, humane techniques for the killing of prairie dogs within a town less than two acres in size (recommended humane techniques) will be obtained from CDOW. • Coordination with the CDOW District Wildlife Manager whose area the project is in will be initiated before any manipulation of prairie dogs or their colonies begins. • Due to the possibility of disease vectoring, until further notice, coordination with the Food and Drug Administration will be initiated if any prairie dogs, dead or alive, are to be transported. Western Burrowing Owl • Burrowing owl surveys would be conducted prior to any work in prairie dog colonies between March 15 and October 31 when burrowing owls are present in Colorado (CDOW 2007). If burrowing owls arc present, prairie dog removal would be scheduled to occur outside this time period. • If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during preconstruction surveys, nests would be left undisturbed and additional avoidance measures would be developed in coordination with CDOW. No human encroachment or disturbance would occur within 150 feet of a known nesting site until after November 1, or until it can be confirmed that owls have left the prairie dog town (CDOW 2007). • Direct impacts to burrowing owls would be avoided by covering or destroying prairie • dog burrows prior to construction (prior to March 15) in order to prevent burrowing owls from nesting in the construction area. Prairie dogs would be humanely removed following CDOT's prairie dog policy prior to destruction of burrows. Great Blue Heron Direct impacts to nesting great blue herons would be avoided by avoiding work within the 500-meter(0.31 mile) buffer from nest sites recommended by CDOW (NDIS 2006). Impacts within this buffer would be limited during the great blue heron nesting season, which occurs from mid-March through July. Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog • Mitigation measures for wetlands and Preble's, including wetlands replacement and riparian enhancement, would also mitigate for impacts to northern leopard frogs and common gartersnakes. • Replacement of culverts with larger culverts or free-spanning bridges would also mitigate for potential impacts to northern leopard frog and common gartersnake. State Sensitive Fish The project would comply with SB40, which requires any agency of the State of Colorado • to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream 62 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • or its bank or tributaries. An application for SB40 wildlife certification would be submitted to CDOW. CDOW would review the plans to ensure that the project adequately protects fish and wildlife resources, and would provide recommendations if the proposed project would adversely affect a stream. To offset temporary impacts to aquatic species from habitat disturbance, aquatic habitats will be restored after construction activities have ceased. The following design measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish: • Ripples and pools will be maintained and/or created. • Natural stream bottoms will be maintained where possible. • Culverts will be partially buried and the bottom will be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient. • Culverts to be replaced will be replaced with one of equal or greater size. • Culverts will not have grates, impact dissipaters, or any other features that would impede fish movement. • To avoid erosion-induced siltation and sedimentation, sediment/erosion control BMPs will be placed during each phase of construction. Upon completion of slope, seeding in combination with mulch and mulch tackifier or blanket will occur within the limits set in Section 208 of CDOT specifications. • Erosion control blankets will be"wildlife friendly", consisting of 100 percent biodegradable materials. • Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. • No new fish passage barriers will be created. • Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where possible. An example is the drop structure located east of the frontage road at I-25 and St. Vrain Creek, which is planned to be modified to facilitate fish passage as part of this project. CDOT's water quality BMPs will be applied, and include the installation of mechanisms to collect, contain, and/or treat roadway run-off. Mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to wetlands and Preble's, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, would also improve fish habitat. • 63 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Invertebrates • The mitigation measures for state-sensitive fish species described above, including SB40 certification and water quality BMPs, also benefit sensitive aquatic invertebrates such as the cylindrical papershell and Mesocapnia frisoni stonefly. Terrestrial Wildlife This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife will be incorporated into the proposed project, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using retaining walls to avoid or minimize impacts, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. The following overall mitigation measures would apply to all project components. Big Game and Movement Corridors Impacts to big game will be minimized through construction of crossing structures that are designed to maintain wildlife movement corridors. In areas identified as important movement corridors, the following measures are recommended. These mitigation measures may not be • feasible at all wildlife crossing areas due to cost or engineering issues. The locations where these mitigation measures will be implemented will be identified as the preferred alternative is identified and final design is undertaken. To maximize use of movement corridors by wildlife, bridge spans and culverts should have the following features: • A minimum clearance of 10 feet and width of 20 feet for deer(Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). Crossing structures sized for deer would be adequate for most common wildlife. The recommended minimum culvert diameter is 48 inches for medium-sized carnivores and 36 inches for small carnivores (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). • A minimum "openness ratio" of 0.75. The"openness ratio" is defined as the height of the structure multiplied by the structure width and divided by the structure length, measured in meters. A minimum openness ratio of 2.0 is recommended by some researchers (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). • Shrubs and vegetative cover placed at bridge underpass openings to attract wildlife and provide a "funnel effect." • For structures that periodically convey water, provide ledges or shelves as passage alternatives during high water. • 64 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • • To avoid human disturbance to wildlife, trails should not be placed near wildlife crossing structures, if possible. The wildlife corridor near Ish Reservoir does not occur along a drainage, and construction of a bridge or culvert at this location would be more difficult than at other wildlife corridors. Other recommended design elements include: • Avoid the placement of lighting near the crossing structures (where lighting is required, lights should be directed downward and covered to minimize light spill- over). • Avoid attracting wildlife to the ROW by keeping roadside vegetation height to a minimum. • Mitigate for traffic noise. Other Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians Many other wildlife species, such as small and medium sized mammals, reptiles, and amphibians use the same migration corridors used by larger animals, and would benefit from mitigation measures for wildlife movement corridors described above. Effects to other wildlife • from impacts to grasslands would be mitigated by mitigation measures described for vegetation. . Other sensitive wildlife habitat areas are generally located along major drainageways. Mitigation measures for impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and Preble's habitat would also benefit these areas. Birds Migratory birds For projects that potentially have an impact to migratory birds, CDOT will implement the following mitigation measures: • Tree trimming and/or removal activities will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. In Colorado, most nesting and rearing activities occur between April 1 and August 31. However, since some birds nest as early as February, a nesting bird survey will be conducted by a biologist before any tree trimming or removal activities begin. • Bridge or box culvert work that may disturb nesting birds will be completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. No bridge or box culvert work will take place between April 1 and August 31. If work activities are planned between these • dates, nests will be removed (before nesting begins) and appropriate measures taken to assure no new nests are constructed. 65 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Clearing and grubbing of vegetation that may disturb ground nesting birds will be • completed before birds begin to nest or after the young have fledged. If work activities arc planned between April 1 and August 31, vegetation will be removed and/or trimmed to a height of six inches or less prior to April 1. Once vegetation has been removed and/or trimmed, appropriate measures, i.e. repeated mowing/trimming, will be implemented to assure vegetation does not grow more than six inches. Raptors CDOW has developed recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for new surface occupancy within certain distances of nest sites of several raptor species (Appendix D). Surface occupancy is defined as human-occupied buildings and other structures such as oil and gas wells, roads, railroad tracks, and trails. The USFWS typically considers that implementation of the CDOW buffers and seasonal restrictions fulfill compliance requirements of the MBTA for raptors. A raptor nest survey would be conducted prior to project construction to identify raptor nests in the vicinity of the proposed project. If an active raptor nest is found on-site, the recommended buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by CDOW (Craig 2002, Appendix D) for raptors will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. If disturbance of raptor nests is unavoidable, mitigation measures could include the construction of artificial nests in suitable habitat or enhancement of prey habitat. Artificial nests would be constructed in the same general area as impacts. If raptor nests would be impacted by the proposed project, specific mitigation measures for impacts to nesting raptors would be developed in coordination with CDOW and USFWS prior to construction. Aquatic Resources The mitigation measures for state-sensitive fish species described above, including SB40 certification, design measures to benefit fish, and water quality BMPs, would also benefit other aquatic resources. Mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to wetlands and Preble's, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, would also improve fish habitat. • 66 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • List of Preparers and Contacts Made Preparers: Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation Project Description and Plans Provided By: Felsburg, Holt& Ullevig Experts Consulted: Alison Deans Michael, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Sandy Vana-Miller, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Mike Sherman, CDOW Habitat Conservation Biologist Shannon Albeke, CDOW Fisheries Biologist Harry Crockett, CDOW Fisheries Biologist Sherry Huwer, CDOW Biologist Mark Vierra, CDOW Biologist Aimee Ryel, CDOW District Wildlife Manager Chad Morgan, CDOW District Wildlife Manager Mark Leslie, CDOW Area Wildlife Manager Larry Rogstad, CDOW District Wildlife Manager Carol Parr, CDOT Region 4 Jeff Peterson, CDOT Endangered Species Biologist Jim Eussen, CDOT Biologist Doug Moore, City of Fort Collins Environmental Planner • 67 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO References Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. Armstrong, D. M., M. E. Bakeman, A. Deans, C. A. Meaney, and T. R. Ryon. 1997. Report on habitat findings of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Boulder, CO. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Austin, J., M. Ferguson, G. Gingras, and G. Bakos. 2003. Strategies for Restoring Ecological Connectivity and Establishing Wildlife Passage for the Upgrade of Route 78 in Swanton, Vermont: An Overview. pp. 253-259. In ICOWET III Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Lake Placid, NY. August 24-29. Barnum, S. A. 2003. Identifying the Best Locations along Highways to Provide Safe Crossing Opportunities for Wildlife: A Handbook for Highway Planners and Designers. Colorado Department of Transportation, in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Baxter, G. T. and M. D. Stone. 1995. Fishes of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 290 pp. Beane, R. D. 1996. Raptor Habitat Relationships at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. MSC. Thesis. University of Colorado at Denver. Denver, CO. Beuhler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Boyle, S. 1998. Spotted owl. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.). Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. 1998. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Adopted March 1998, amended September 1999 and October 2000. Available at: http://www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/fossil-creek-doc.pdf. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2003. Guidelines for Senate Bill 40 wildlife certification developed and agreed upon by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado Department of Transportation. January. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2005. Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy. Memorandum. March 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW). 2001. Colorado Gap Analysis Project Land Cover Classification System. Available at: http://ndisl.nrel.colostate.edu/cogap/landcover. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2002. Unpublished black-tailed prairie dog mapping data. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005a. Bald eagle species profile. Colorado Division of Wildlife website. Updated December 2, 2005. Available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WIlifeSpecies/Profiles/Birds/baldeagle.htm. Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW). 2005b. Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened, and Wildlife Species of Special Concern. Available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/Lis tOffhreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.htm. Last updated December 14, 2005. 68 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 HS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005c. Confidential unpublished sampling data from study area, provided by S. Albeke, Fisheries Biologist. September 26. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005d. NDIS habitat metadata. Available at: http://ndis.nrel.colostatc.edu/webs ite/map it/presentation/support/metadata.asp?color=green. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2006a. Black-footed ferret species profile. Colorado Division of Wildlife website. Available at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WIdlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcem/Mammals/BlackfootedFerret.ht m. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2007. Recommended survey protocol and actions to protect nesting burrowing owls. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1996. Vertebrate characterization abstract (Colorado)Zapus hudsonius preblei. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2005. Colorado Natural Heritage Program Environmental Review. Locations and Status of Rare and/or imperiled elements within the North 1-25 EIS Regional Study Area. Generated October 28, 2005. Cordone, A. J. and D. W. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game. Volume 47, Number 2, pp. 189—227. April. Craig, G.R. 2002. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife. January 18. Crockett, H. 2006. Personal communication from Harry Crockett, CDOW to James Eussen, • CDOT. August 1. Dexter, C. 1998. Great blue heron. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.) 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. EDAW. 2003. Resource Management and Implementation Plan for Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space. Prepared for Larimer County and City of Fort Collins. Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. Gamble, N. 2006. Bald Eagle Watch 2006 Report, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Field Office. Huwer, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sherry Huwer, CDOW to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18. Jackson, S. D. 2000. Overview of Transportation Effects on Wildlife Movement and Populations. Pp. 7-20 In Messmer, T. A. and B. West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Jackson, S. D. and C. R. Griffin. 2000. A Strategy for Mitigating Highway Effects on Wildlife. Pp. 143-159 In Messmer, T. A. and B. West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: • Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society. Jasikoff, T. M. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: ferruginous hawk. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. FWS/OBS-82/10.10. 18 pp. 69 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Jones, S. R. Burrowing Owl. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.) 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. • Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Kingery, H. E. (ed.) 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Martell, M. 1992. Bald Eagle Winter management guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reg. 3, Minneapolis, MN. Meaney, C. A., A. Deans, N. W. Clippenger, M. Rider, N. Daly, and M. O'Shea-Stone. 1997. Third year survey for Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. Boulder, CO. Under contract to Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDlS). 2006. Wildlife Species Pages. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available at: http://ndis.nrcl.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team (NSBERT). 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 76 pp. Opler, P. A., H. Pavulaan, and R. E. Sanford (coordinators). 1995. Butterflies of North America. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Available at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa.htm (Version 12DEC2003). Power, M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes, B. A. Menge, W. T. Bond, L. S. Mills, G. Daily, J. C. Castilla, J. Lutchonco, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the Quest for Keystone Species. BioScience 46:609-620. Preston, C. R. 1998. Ferruginous Hawk. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.). Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Probst, D.L. 1982. In Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish: A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 77 pp. Quinn, T. and R. Milner. 2004. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias). In E. M. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds [Online]. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vol4/gbheron.htm. Downloaded on July 17, 2006. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2007. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. Ruediger, B. and M. DiGiorgio. 2007. Safe Passage: A user's guide to developing effective highway crossings for carnivores and other wildlife. Produced by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. Ryel, A. 2006. Personal communication from Aimee Ryel, CDOW, to Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation. September. Ryon, T. R. 1996. Evaluation of historical capture sites of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in Colorado. Final Report. MSES Thesis University of Colorado at Denver. May 1. Sherman, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mike Sherman, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. June 19. Smith, R. E. 1967. Natural History of the Prairie Dog in Kansas. University of Kansas • Museum of Natural History Misc. Publication No. 49. 70 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities Conservation Biology 14 (1), 18-30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Black-footed ferret survey guidelines for compliance with Endangered Species Act. Denver, CO and Albuquerque, NM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003a . Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003b. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Impacts to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Associated with FHWA Funding of CDOT's Routine Maintenance and Upgrade Activities on Existing Transportation Corridors of Eastern Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 2004a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding for a Petition to Dclist the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse in Colorado and Wyoming and Initiation of a 5-Year Review; Federal Register; 69: 16944- 16946. March 31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)2004b. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. January. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004c. Survey Guidelines for Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS, Colorado Field Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 2005a. Letter to Jeff Peterson, Colorado • Department of Transportation Endangered Species Specialist, from Susan C. Lipner, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Supervisor. July 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005b. Unpublished trapping database for Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Last updated September 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. USFWS Block-cleared Areas for Black- Footed Ferret Surveys in Colorado, July 2007. Map produced by USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2008. Amendment to the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. February 5. Vana-Miller, S. 2006. Personal communication from Sandy Vana-Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. February 27. Veneer M. 2001. Long-range multi-species advance mitigation: CDOT's shortgrass prairie initiative process and benefits . IN: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 200- 206.Vierra, M. 2006. Personal communication from Mark Vierra, CDOW, to Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation. September 18. Wells, P., J. G. Woods, G. Bridgewater, and H. Morrison. 1999. Wildlife mortalities on railways: monitoring methods and mitigation strategies. p. 85-88 In ICOWET III International Conference On Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, Missoula, Montana, September 13-16. • Whicker, A. D. and J. K. Detling. 1988. Ecological Consequences of Prairie Dog Disturbances. BioScience, 38:778-785. 71 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT NORTH 1-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOM-IUD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO White, G. C. and T. M. Shenk. 2000. Relationship of Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse • Densities to Vegetation Cover. Colorado Division of Wildlife Report. Winternitz, B. L. 1998. Black-necked stilt. In Kingery, H. E. (ed.). Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Witmer, G. W., K. C. VerCauteren, K. M. Manci, and D. M. Dees. 2000. Urban-suburban prairie dog management: opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference. T. P. Salmon and A. C. Crabb, Eds. Published at Univ. of California, Davis. Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish: A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 77 pp. • • 72 APPENDIX A CDOT Impacted Prairie Dog Policy • • Appendix A • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THOMAS E. NORTON ,e D OT Executive Director 4201 E.Arkansas Avenue, Room 262 r Denver! CO 80222 DEFAR1MENT Of TR4NSPORTATION (303)757-9201 DATE: March 4, 2005 TO: Executive Management Team FROM: Tom Norton SUBJECT: Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy Over the winter of 2004-2005 the Chief Engineer, RPEMs, and RTDs agreed upon the following policy for addressing Black-tailed prairie dogs that will be impacted by CDOT projects. These guidelines should be applied to all CDOT activities that affect Black- tailed prairie dogs. 1) CDOT projects will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts to prairie dog colonies greater than two acres in area; • 2) If a colony is less than two acres, but has the potential to expand into areas that are currently inactive (i.e., not constrained), the available and accessible habitat will be the determining size of the area to be considered; 3) In order to foster a heightened sense of CDOT's ecological stewardship by the public, projects involving towns less than two acres in area, will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, which may include the relocation of prairie dogs, so long as doing so will not increase the impacts to other resources (e.g. wetlands, historical properties, environmental justice issues, archeological sites, etc.) and is not cost prohibitive; 4) The area of prairie dog towns that will be affected by a project will be calculated before construction begins; 5) Relocation efforts for prairie dog town greater than two acres shall be conducted in accordance with CRS 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations; 6) If a relocation site cannot be located for towns larger than two acres, the prairie dogs will be captured and donated to raptor rehabilitation facilities, or turned over the FWS for the black-footed ferret reintroduction program; 7) At no time will CDOT authorize earth-moving activities that result in the burying of • living prairie dogs. If needed, humane techniques for the killing of prairie dogs within a town < 2 acres in size, will be obtained from CDOW; Page 2 Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy • March 4, 2005 8) Coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife's District Wildlife Manager whose area the project is in, will be initiated before any manipulation of prairie dogs or their colonies begins; 9) Due to the possibility of disease vectoring, until further notice, coordination with the Food and Drug Administration will be initiated if any prairie dogs, dead or alive, are to be transported. The matrix below outlines the steps and the order they are to be taken based on the preconstruction area of an affected prairie dog town. Preconstruction area of available prairie dog habitat' greater than 2 acres less than two acres 1st Avoid and minimize impacts Avoid and minimize impacts 2nd Relocate Donate to ferret program and/or raptor rehab program 3rd Donate to ferret program and/or Humanely euthanize2 • raptor rehab program 4th Humanely euthanize2 1. Area of land able to be used by prairie dog that may or may not be occupied; calculated before a project begins. 2. Aluminum phosphate capsules, carbon monoxide gas cartridges or carbon dioxide gas cartridges are currently recommended, but not the exclusion of any future technologies that may be developed. Background On February 4, 2000 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classified the black-tailed prairie dog as a candidate species for protection under the Endangered Species Act. In October of that same year the State of Colorado designated the black- tailed prairie dog a Species of Concern. On January 8, 2002 I signed a memo outlining guidelines for the relocation of black- tailed prairie dogs impacted by CDOT activities. Subsequently, the USFWS has removed the black-tailed prairie dog from the federal candidate species list. However, the State of Colorado has retained it on their list of species of concern. It is important that CDOT adopt a statewide strategy that will assist in diminishing the negative effects that transportation related activities have on the continued survival and recovery of the species. Adopting a pro-active departmental policy under the authority of CDOT may help minimize the possibility of federal listing of the black-tailed prairie • dog in the future and is consistent with State and Transportation Commission policy direction. Page 3 • Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy March 4, 2005 Policy Basis The Transportation Commission has adopted policy statements and policy statements and policy guidance in the 2020 Statewide Transportation Plant adopted November 2000, that direct CDOT activities. These include: "Statewide Transportation Policy on the Environment: CDOT will promote a transportation system that is environmentally responsible and encourages preservation of the natural and enhancement of the created environment for current and future generations. We will incorporate social, economic, and environmental concerns into the planning design, construction, maintenance and operations of the states existing and future transportation system. With the active participation of the general public, federal, state and local agencies, we will objectively consider all reasonable alternatives to avoid or minimize adverse impacts." and: "Environmental Policy Guidance: The Transportation Commission supports pro-active techniques to mitigate impacts of the transportation system on the environment by developing creative strategies that: • • Comprehensively address anticipated environmental impacts of the state transportation system. • Consider project enhancements in affected communities in a cost effective manner consistent with the mission of the Department; and • Expedite project development." • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • • APPENDIX B Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians Known to Occur in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado • • Appendix B • THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • • .0 .:., ,0 03 u: v E le c., O ✓ 4.. C E u a) C u 17 C Q o '� y U : G CO t+:. '33 O •V 'o V V 'V -O b "V 'V V "V 'V 'V 'V 'G .O Ti -g 'V 'O 'V 'V 'V = V V �j d Ol 3) GJ N N N N d 3) N 7! OJ 'y 3) d C .L .c .cn y .cn .cn .y+ .c .cn .rn .y .C .C .C .WI .c .c .cn .cn ..r.. .V .✓i y u 1 1 1 y 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a aaaaaaaa c O O o ca O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O o O 0 V1 Z Z Z v7 Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ cu AO V • ^C `II 'c- c o fi EA O O Z E a z �, y d o• ...a .. 0 t:. Z •2 ', c z 3 t• '. •i a i i De C o wc o z..i; s. , .t.: 4 , >, o 7.7. '6' tg, P .;a o }, o •Z t v •• o s 3 Q>• D H N Ci ;al. .,, -, Oi r - 2 C+ 4s ' c v .c -C F t v ▪ C -c " " C -c x s C z •Q o o `t " a o p p `� o `� c a c o o fi e '8, a p o C (� 0O▪ +4 m Q; C 'T 4 C1 C Qq 4. v C.> C C.i 4. 4. 'T y [-- 0., a O C v: rc :J o c v 3 33 311 f CA O cp o LL. C cv v Q c a C c 'y as E E I.•�. o v . p t) c4 u. E v V p y E. g O G. O O V y a O ,V.. 'C M V M E = ¢ oO c.) U 0 CD C.:"/ �G a c. x x h 3 3 cal U c t.`� '� ¢ �i a C c c c c c e c c c c c c c c c c0 H F' 00 E E fn as c o 3 as c0 �0 c7 to R co as cC es c0 c0 c0 coo O 0. V V c E .c V U U cj V V V C) _V C) U C.) U U U o a ,- o o ca 00 0 U E c E E ^ E c E c c E E E E E y a) m m J Z Z a. (= 3 3 ¢ Q ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ a h M O g E9 C9 c c c cc Cc0 .:Q L .= .C -c -c .G s t S n v In rn v In h y In w v 0 Ir 0 H M M V E E E E E E E E E v v -� .v b -a L L L L L I. V L L 1.. L W L L 4. o a < < « « < « CE CZ' caa[ ccoacaCB65c4amo it-iCam •mm E E 03 • • _o to to Co Co to CO to to to CO CO CO CO CO O CO_ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CC 'i '7 "t -s "1 h "'1 •-f '_i R "9 -e '1 .7c. '4 ;i' '4 '9. r`9. '.. '-.. ..:1 ti' rt '.. Y Q. R 0. n. G.CA y. y. 0.CA a. CA d. n. R. 0.CA V: CA n. O. 0VI FA CA. 0. Q. G. 0CI). y C. y. 0. Cl.. r� CO '.= Ci. N CO CC W CA CO CO GO CO CO CO Co CO CO CO Oo CO CO CC M CO CO LC CO CO CC CC ^"', A7 A7 !v A7 Ci CC P A7 07 P A7 07 A7 A7 n 2• tcc sb--. 4 A7 z W -- A7 W O n n n n a a n n n n n n a a < — 7 - A' 7C 7C 7 7C 7< 7r X' 7C - 7✓ 7C 7✓ 7- • f9 v" o >r O fl a — 7 7 7 n G , O n c o 0, co Cr g 0 f 0 2) M . M w O oc cn 7r 0. 5 *0 0 •--0 . . B ,.e —• �' c a ry is C� >n -11 C 0. O. n f"1 Q -''.••. fD y O. O O a. O O+ Cr C4 C) e; y O .9 .C.. O S n O �.gr, O z O S v x O .e S "� o 7 fo R •' O `E C = -. Pr !o' 00 y pa rc ^, „0 4- 0 a `° �' a B to I 7 R P7 O O 2 , t r: C - 7 • p pip' L.2 q �" FE- !• ip r0 C C I CC O C ,e.-. `y y y yy y y �1 •-y y '-y �J �J �J y •� CO Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ,W O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 -I 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0O 7• V7 y 7 m. c• ^ 7 U• y ..n A Vii 7) h W A (A V1 f7pi Vry(i• E {A �U_�pp ryryJ_ Z © 0 CD 0 fC 0 N N O 0 C ry R C. 0. R C3. 0. 0. ^'R a n o a a a 0. a `a a a 0- c 0. 0. eo C COD v a f J to s W • •o c4 c c 6 :J E 7L ct L I I_, 1:: 73. N N al d V y 0 y N a�J V V N V 0 V aJ d d N 71 -0 0 V V N •.r i I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z 1. u 0 O CC ch) y o E I^ r ell et Z a i s - y Q. a • 'fl co) C �C L c' 2 ;.. • e, v a a of 'i: ' 1 . ,'vim C .fi O a L. Zs c .0 I. 'a • s o g y s o • o ate, E fi s t a -- d - z Do C •II ` ^ .' C 'v 0) "i Z. 'i 0 O d Z 0 u ? O C O O C e, Z, ca e., C +.. 3• U O 7 C7 O U' 0. ' 4 co a 7 iv to ao C.) E: a ai a v) m Q 0 0 I) L i 4+ y ca E � 17 el a c z 3 0 �, c �- •` 6. E 0. o i l iii u c 3 0 o c E V v 3 _ -0 0 0 2 6, Ce U v — 'E o �ecd F- '� a U t T ,e a, t -b •_o CC C,) 0 8 >, as c a) 3 m v) = •c 2 .c 0✓ 0 O cc V g u x a; x ae V V =° cA 3 E a a) a) v 3 3 3 ' o c -es co c� u aj v a) v u O la a, 3 3 ea ca a w _ R > 0. c c c 0 0 0 0 I? ` 0 0 0 . 0 . = t a ro co m co a) m m m an CO CO CO CO m m CO m m CO m CO CO m m CO CO CO U U U U a 0. 6 o F+1 L Et: V) V) V) V) V) U. V7 V) V) V) W V' V) V: V) V) V) V) V) V: V) Cl; Cf. V) Ir. ��)1� 'o lo Ti �v ' 'v "o � 'o 72 -o c '2 v Po ' �v L 'v �v "o -v � � 'o an �1/ L LL_ 1M��/, co co OE L L i n �1It 1M/�r _ .L/. ML_ IL M�yL_, ML_ 1 rL_�., ML_ M1 �Fyn, i w L_ ~ m m w m W ,M. = m m a' ce m di m W m m W W W W m m E E co 7 • w 2 O7 to co _o cJ G7 CA to co Co to to to Co CO CO CC CO CO CO CO CO CO _O CO W ^ A+ G. O. 0. P. ~R. Ct. R P. Cl. C]. Ct. P. P. P. G. G. G. G. 0.. Q. G. Cl Q CA CA CA IA 0 CA 0 �y Vl CA V. V1 V. IA h CA V) CA V: CA V) V: U. V3 W. Vi r O a e 20 n n n n n n n n n n n n n _n n n n n n n n n 0 n n n c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - m X X S =• 0 m m w m w 'C 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 m o z n 0 "�+ E. m w w' g0 Cl.o. n < 0 U S o. N ' ry 2 r w g `�° q o'ro T Fir 0. ro 2 ma 0 o co �, ., a o o a 0' 0 = eo ° C s ≤e n. Q E • CD w, O nnn � � � � � � � 44.4, . nrmm � yny � n � .- s z c. r m 0 ,' ° a= o a o z < a �" co epft "CS 0 a a E.- , n it O. Pin O c 7-7 Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z z z C1 00000000000000000000000000 —s � o 7 o R a a 7 5 D ' o a 7 7 7 7 7 7 o a a 7 0 _ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 CA y V (A CA• _ _ _ E. _ CA CA CA CA rn cd) CA CA CA VI II tA CA_ ,+ CD CD CD ry g. f9 fD fD fD C 'i 0. 0- f°a ry E. °. a a 0. 0. 0. d. 0. 0. Ca. a a `0. a c. a. a a 0. a 0. A cA d Az 0 C et P 0 B A 1 O a r: n 0 • 7 'r c :a 6- ..:. P L L cf., J t C n ,:./: :J a G G1 9 R �p 7 .= .= co co .t ro .c .c .EA vOi. .Lo ro .'r", co co .w v, L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.: Z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C/) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z L 1 V 0 C Q7 V w Q VE,u C 3 C ° ` y v • p C ++ p v 0: „ y4. .2 Z v y t [ .c y '� Z Q • 'a .r V 41 fi M " �+ 3 v Y -0 C _SQ l Q ^ d ti Z Q r C ''L'• J` y .0 'v `� o fi '� C Q C e: Q ' G a� y to. c s a. a ., ._y —. 0. Vcu r U] ' ~� 4 0 y d c i 4 C C ,I C O �. ¢ a r t' U. ;. A ,ri L r O Se V .C Ei ti 3 0 C Y I �. :J Ca E al O 0 o 2 ti. E O td o �E L ca on x Y 3 . o u y v c 3 3 Q o x >, s u -as spa J; o yQ •` = p —_ .= no Eo o N m " la y o crud y a.0i C co-c �y y 0 c ' ost U `" C � a O 43 1 brm c, o o 0 13 6.oo utuvou = 0 - o o = 2 c.y e R a > V 2 E 0 0 0 0 o v U U U U U A A A A A LLI u u`� w W u� W u.1 a. ix., IA. I.. 1. u. J yL W ✓) A A co v: y r/4 N V1 LA I/3 V: V) Vl y V. C/: VI I/1 v' ✓r v, Vi Vi V: V) 9 'C 'C 'C 'D 'C •0 •'C 'O •'C •'O 'O •'C 'D •b •b 'C •'0 '0 b b 'O 7 'D 'O 'O !�, `/ L F. L V 6. $.. 1.. L. L L 6, L L L $-. _ L L_ L L_ L_ 6. 6. L CO co co Cl m m m m m m co m m m m m m m m CG 00 GO m m m m Co" E 4 • m co co co CJ _0 CO _O CO CO _0 CO _W _0 _O CO CO CO CO CO C _0 _0 CO CO CO = DI Y' Y Y Y Y Y Y Y' Y Y Y "9' 't =I Y Y' Y' Y Y Y ri Y Y "S' H a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a. a s a. P. O. C,. • CA CA V: to y to to GA fA CA CA CA V; Vf n to to Vl to to VI V: r.A y V, CA C W C .• % a IA s n n C) n n n n - n n n n n n n 1 n n n n n n O nn. w` " Pb �'p+ �Yp ry c'3 CD 2 CD ry a� a� a� 0 m c ? 0 '� 2 .LT It a 2 A' (O 0 0 N t0 O 0 /0 O `C <e < .-'<'' w r, C. E.°. c G �' r tPrecenn ' Et nY 1 Ei y Et - rn .J tx -9 - 6 11 o O fA .7t .7 O �. C lD t,'.C En cn p `0 p 00 n C O -t `G `G ra C� n P1 w f o LTA n O G S n m O go b R to n F O Pt O+ '6 Po ivO I') m r7 n a r' a' a ;. G "� n e) a "I '' c O C AI y x rno C r) O _? tG Q w a C 2 F.,., f0 y ^=" Y R m m Q O O n C. Icr Do 77 = O .n tic "C O --t n - L . S +. m m n n D Dn PC `3 O a b to y a a z c) y co 4, N b h7 a b C h n r,:,: L a z `' `n 6, t n `. g % ''a' A n ;.: ? 'fir Cn fp p "g s C a ' M. a M. Z n C T .' n C �,, T �. H C rD • t.; R ^' r y .M Z" U ' A n• ^., O 2 t.. O .7 DI n ti ;' a C S C R t,; :,1 a ,.�.t C m m 0, to C a , Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z = 777777777n7777777777777777 t t t t t c� t t t t t t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t t t t t t t t OG to• y V:' �' tA' :.,,e; H. tn' tA' 1 y pi' fA. y_. Vi' VJ: y. Vi' ;A' R' V' {A' Vi' Vj' Vl' U 2 a. " n. D. a. c. g. Q. p, 5.n rD 0, co Onil :D 0 o co o n d O O n CA mt- "'r ! C CD W .:71 r m "! 2 A m C A 0 ST :J V - I. J • E -L Z el ^J t W I C o tom. 'c7 'O � '$ a�i )a .o -v 0 -v -v -v v -v 'ti "Cl"o �O 'a -c -o LI - ` y v v v v v v v v v v v . . . two., ta .rte' .. .... V) .P' y y V) V) 1 112 A 0 A 0 0 VI E 0 0 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O G G G G G G G G G G G C G G G G G G G G G G G G 02 Z Z Z Z L L L Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z v) Z Z Z i ar 'O o C 20 a+E 1 VJ z v1 v so vs Z e s a t 'O 5 V C t ZIt Z L a ! .4 R as c o ,, R o e k • O L a7 ; ? tZ fi r. G O ` C v' y '„ •` .!.1 O vs C .3 `- :4 r .� i Vim .ca -� ^y ^. y C> ^r X1.1 V ~ t4 " ` 4.... ' i o- ~ r • ,y 3 "" `� t C4 to 3 'ev' C O '� O m 's; C ' C Cs C C O C i C • O -fi " C C t O G ti C ey C V C U J .1 4 V U C a. W U i U U U 4 U c.1 U (r+ -' L 3 c , c Y z c `° .x w s ,. D G C O x E0 0 �, u V) Q E .. c 3 n v u v v 'D ov .n v o v °�° o0 3 c a w d1 c, C o 4 CS v R tv 4 001 c 5 o .� o c u .fl 'D 'coLT! o In es V CA F' ao v b b EA 3 m 6. -7 •--o c a m m D O a` o 7"- 3 w c v v E1 v v v O y B y G CG coo a+ a+ I- I. IC-. E p to 'G 'G y ,X p n v cl n vs a m '3 c. cc6 u V V O OOOOO 'O G • m _1 ..l V V ai V y u 2 _ — 2 X Z Z — 2 r1 r.1 ..1 _ "C a. L a C 1, w cn In vJ cn cn Ir VI N cn E/1 y •JJ co: V1 cn ca col Vi V1 Ir IA IA h :n ,n G7 'v -v -g -v -v -v -v v -a To v 10 "o "0 b b la b -2 b -0 I. 'V Ls C 452 m m CO CO CO CO m CO CO oa CO 03 CO CO cq 00 CO CO CO CO CO m CO w as ca E - E vs 0 4 • DD, co ca co co cc co m w w co co c0 co cc to co cc m co ca co CO CO CO _W CO m a a a a a a a a a. a a a a a a a a o.• Q. a a a a a a a...". n y z h V) :A CA V: VI CA :A VI V' on V) en v, V` V1 V: CA V+ CA V) N 0 V) CA ._ MIO w J Z z Z Z Z Z Z z r- r r r r r c 0000000 m 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 ma 0 0 0 0 n eD n w w p p s a a a a x a c a c c x = n n r o n o CD CD CD " a o < 3 0 0 0 y. (- s. 0 s m--, n gal; 0 — o 3 3 P. o CD CDCD - 'o- _a _5 p a a a. = 2 ? oo a y - ..+ eS a 5. a• a• 'a 0 Z. fD rA 'o L� ^n r] oo -o r; oo `� c a• a a a `° cn C� m 0 5 g y n a a' 0 00 0 _. c 7C 0 r a n O G. Ta- cil cr coa Q v a n O 0 o C 0- 0- C a — n z tio C- 9 9' et = X a :L n a n (-) c; '7 N r) b y 'I n n a g a r r` c� r ° e ° ,. a o n ; a e 4• a "3 Z CM Fe o O wi ^ r. � y�� Q• 'A r, y �` �= f1 1 wZ' .4: 1 r y — ri V ti ri w r 'v ..�IUIHii. ..__ R, n' fN Z i 1 �r • _ - GJ 0LI 0 a r e C_ C. eD Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z C Z z Z '1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m c o o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o a a o a a m o a a a a' m o g o a a o = o 0 0 0 ': .*EA FA'' �' 'a' .. .-. VJ Cl. en b en en v. .. rn rn. en en en en rn V• V'. co co• co 0. a s a. co 0. O. Fr, 0.0- a a a co. a a a a. co a. a co zil E 0 e9 o 0 co co 2 R. _ `= w 133: CeD s. r a m A, .. ry . • a 5 C ca i 'J • Z te.+ • N I a. V: .. - N W O 0 O O O O O N O O O O >-. -0 «+ O m � � y y � � y cC y in' in' v: Vi I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I t' O 1 1 I 1 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 40 O O O O C= Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z w O Z Z Z Z L 4 'V Ci o a q a C e O E ca Z = I, • y r D4 O ..= Z... t'l 0 "O ." V C ' 3 t ' y k a v v Q .L knZ C .; y 3 C as R V) .. y c, .c o a 4 d -c y •4 fi y v a Oan u w 's . + I' tfii, a a P fi a t' .c" Q g � n "a q E Q O c - t C 3 a o e C e O 0 • °° Z ..-E- . c t Z 5 y a - a P• s `o a C7 e e v CJ C; , C5 O U Z. a. 4 U V U I* `: 4 V 4a c 3 o in Tal O °' 3 E v 0 �, v z o , .O v t u S c °' = c 3 > y ?, u y c Y m 0 3 0 �, t� 3 o c 41 c ea C7 u v v X 444 co U — xo rn v) v) 3 3 0 0 0 c cn 0 0 E 'o c4 a 7a Y = -� c o �_ a w ii U N V v N ea N a y to OA 6, > A U V L- V Cn C DO u, N _y co S 1'. t Z ..C .C C y tom. O bA i O -9 O O O G V L fA (o co 41 0) .. q G C P. 'R Dcs 4... a = I) Z Z Z Z Z Z O O � � O a. O. a a 'c. a •a a a. a a a R. a f ^ Cl. O O V' VJ VJ V' V: co.) V: V) JJ Va h V: V) �/. N !1 V) V1 V) V1 � V) co: V! V1 10 v o 'o -E "a 12 T V: L L Lw L. 4. 4. L L 1.. L L {.. V L V L 4. L L. 1- L O co co CO Qa CO CO CO m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m m m CC CC P - P - _ I E • g = CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO MI M or m W CO CO CO CO CO CO CO d Q. IA GO 0. 0. y. 0.1. A. 0. y. 0.ril O. y. a. C. ¢. 4. Q. G. 0. n. E . El o.'". y. C. y. ym y Cl CA d, O te a x 7o x 70 po z po x 70 m m x 0 70 70 70 70 x x 70 70 7z po pz x po r° C O O O O O ro co n co co co rD (C rD co CD N "C O O •�+> 0. 0• C co) Cl) n n - ,7 -- 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. G. 0. O. �" n Sr 7 0+ -. n m c�D y co C ^ Cr 7C -00 c Fr = 9 0- 0. n c a a a. n a a v m a ..5. a r^� ° m C a 5' c r� w CI 0 = 17 co c 8 O C 00 S III. C4 "4. In 7r cr a' O Co co no o' a J 0. K CD 0.4 CD n n '0J' w n ..T r sa r O H i O O O tn o w a 4 n a r''' a CO -C4, r Li n r c., P.2 .� .T O c' n ti 3- h rC . SS C. ^ • ton 41 Q �• _ §' z a rw �' 2 n 7 aD m a 1D: lot. � PD RJ O c a Pb Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ea O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -, T 7 ? 7 '.,3 7 7 7 T p 7 7 T7 p 7 7 7 T T 7 7 C Cl) N Cl) Cl) fns 2. a. o. a a. a. o. 0. E. a Q a. a a. a 8. a. 'el a. a s. a. a. 0. 2. a. :, et, a ' � v C ; C, :S � r r e7- r., • ... J ... .. : ..._____._.__. __ ,..., ..... L E E 1°' cs 61 '� U N N U Ol N N Id U 0J N CJ y N �L N 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I. L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 C C 0 _ 0 C 0 0 0' m Z Z - Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ Z Z. iw O O i 0: v 4 rA O y6 GO C C C 4t C - r fi ` v v C fi tr • 1Jfl1 ! 1I ! III11I1III• UIE C �, C J •� L . •n ti V ti , Q ., '3 v y '3 C 0> v A C .r.": + 0r ,fiizs +� O O c, y E L q o ;z o s 1 y c E : .: .• V V 7 O C> C7 4 cn v C) ? 4 U V I C 4 Q Q: y ▪cn L O c) tei _ U .▪= Ca 3 C.) o co i ° �- ° 3 3 1. v A a C7 L E 0 — 0 0 - I e $0 ° �° C 0 'G 'C ., O :. CT: L E a : 'r 3 w. v, a, �� o H 3 3 3 1 s c o . = o E A 2 0 0 0 - - o 8 E - � Cn rn V) C# v) v, Cl) Cl) U)) v) v) VI U) V) U) V) v) - - Cn to CL W A V V' V V. V) VJ Vi V) W II. IA CA V) IA VI S V1 Vi 6 V 6 6 .'f. 8 0 -0 -0 -a -0 '0 'O v 'O 'D "0 'C '0 'O 'o •g -o a 'D 'C7 'O D a a n "O V; ML .yL. I. I. ..L.. C0I.. 00. /L. �I... I. NNI.1. r�I.. r-4.. 1M.I I. CO �I-.. L I. co. co. I. M� �I.+� S. I. CI M nn CO CO W W 03 M' CO W .L r I.. W CO V W m m W m W I+i on co C ea r 4 • a, 3 to 00 co co 0o co co co co co co to 00 07 0o IX CO CO CO Co CO CO CO Co O7 CO m O. O. M. 0. O. O. M. a. O. 0. M. 0. 0. O. M. O. 0, 0. 0. M. O. O. O. 0. 0. 0. h �' CA v: VI LA :n v, to co fn w Vi v+ LA w con vn cn v, cn cn v+ of Vi w v+ w .. Z • H • < < < < < < < C H --) -i -3 -] -i vl LID cn va cn v, w F CD ry ry ro b e C @ o o ry g C T. rD '8 `C co .rye' CD oc pc .�f �. �; ¢ CD .< g CD � a' w c, 3, .l CD ..r..' fD fa (D . `G O ry n z ry N 0 0 0 a' r a',' ca c„n o' y a "� w v ry S y 'a c c o cm y rya C W Co C X ri, m ° �' ca cn C cn w a R. 0. CD 'n cm m- h ry •o 0, O f) SD ry o a- co o �, s 'u o c s �, s S C ≤D C F ry 'et `, 0 r X '" m to ` Rs .'7 C C a s C 7, y 'O v r w r n y p t; t o to t n n b n r0." a ° $ - z o a a' A c 2 m a' z ft a ' ' s 0 0 'g rya .t a y a r -, Z. rA. . a ° o c m. 0 O � S C a a c-. A t,.. O_ C f. A aD.t E c. fD At' Cln y we fD , C 0 C pC a R C y0 a `� x x Li r t o h , ` (� R —. PS o a c" �. a Q s _ x Zio c ' Con �'i o Y ,. Q _ • a 0 - -- r CJ Z L Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z = o pi OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO top. '..r co f(AD y. co H co co R. c. co fn. Vi. V:. V=. :n. co co co co co co fn r. [n. O a. p R. G. C. R. R. R. R. R. O.. R. (D CD O (D ow ow lD w woo N `� ,, `� o a n a a R. R a a a a ry CD CD 0. a. C a= 0 r n. n I _ r M. 0 • 01. cts ,a u o •i ,s u J v f CA I=. 7a V V V N N 67 V V V O N N d N U V ?I N N d N V N V N O 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 43 I I I 1 I I 1 C C C C C G c G G C C C C G G G G C ) C C G G G G C CA z z. Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z z Z Z Z z z Z z w Z Z Z Z Z Z Z is a) b z. z a es ea Z z K •d C �,z. .ti •---. v Q •_ C • Y C C. .� C C p In 'r cI 0 0 MCa) L ..1. ',Ac, 0 'C -0 p ., C ...t• C c.. C C •.I to .' Y pr Q O g , `Q c z c EZqj a fi , i s y o --- z .. o U y a .. q s c c c Q a ti' C.) O Q U 44 a 2 N 4. U t� 'T - v C 60 w 4. = E: C , 0 c h E . 3 s •a tp = y flE. o a CS 3 a �a a a3i a vc+i ° 3 $ c n., Q o •a r a 73 '1:, A (.1:4' v� rn o M C C y G t. C O C >. y b a 'a ca co u. Di] U y q o 03 s ca = p. sa U aC rn rn cn v, [= 3 N a O E .°7 E ° ,c c ao se o c 3 coi E E E E E E E o 2 «� I 1 10 .2 *5 F. 3 c c l- au a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 oou `3 3 `3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 I) ✓ W iw //�I▪II� O F�III , cn (n H h V: cn En cn cn rn rn cn h v.' � V y y rn cn 4n En cn In cOr G� "o a v o 10 o v a v o v v -2 v -o 12 o 2 ?. b o "v el m m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Co CO CO CO CG CO CO CO CO CO CO CO E E ea X 0 a; • E E 4444444K 4 4 4 4 4 K 4K 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 to M to to M 00 IM M 0 MWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W ti �-i 11 -ii ....Di. `1 •-1 ^i /1 V` 9 ? 3 3 3 3 952 y y y a F.' y p 00000000000000 W W W W C Z CC w Dn U. 47 M Dn ro V: W w DA m .A Dn :A fA W Dn 't, �.. •1. N n n n CO 07 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO > > > > > > .< -< -< -< -< .< 0 0 ° 5 0 F m E ov oc' av' 9 8 5 n � c f° N O O O N 00 O iS 0 7C 7' X X p Tl W 2 y .�i K ti O O O O O O O O 0 o n. m to g ~ o n' n' n• n' n' Dn F I F a f. 0 c • P a K m_ to G7 E. 3 W o D a g x o = 5' n C rt, S ei a Z C I X ; C 7 ti Wes» or,- C 'O O , - C `' ¢ co .. C f J �, a o z r:10:• L C C dC ; �. c .. b , 'C z 2 4 C T C a A .2., ,o C fD 0 a o 2. y Cith' 3 o y p 1 O W m. Z Z Z Z Z Z 1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CO AD O a 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .� 7 ? ? .7 7 n 7 co!7 O D D O 7 6 p O 6 7 7 O O R a O 7 0 DA Dr H ti En 43 , y• an• an• DA Gn an • Gn an• ^• an T an an r• 0 7 in - Po '. G. P N CD A a. S. P, CD ft el). cD cD N cD ry co co CD n . CL a. G. 6. CL C. G. P. A. C.. O. G Z. Z. ' IS OeD n Q R. O j o prp n el v F- < C e a f 1 co J cD r CIA CL co co • II I _ CE V v V O O O O 0 V O V V V V V O V O O V >, V O V V O C C C C C C C C C C C C C C a C C F C i. O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O , O O O O 0Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LL Z Z Z Z co •a O CC to ^a CQ Q Z $ v ea ea Z N '3 �0+ v z oil "O L co C v, -y f 3 C e' �+•• fi -C O ....._a) C Or rrr N a fi S,1 �v.. ^• y r. O ID :a c U = ,1 z fi 5t oo a G s g c; O i - i � y O y C h 0 v n. 's O a = co — cos cr = -0 's c C. c o v _. L7 O e, 0 3 ° �' o = °' a y E _ -a > 3 o _a O or U = o s c/a 7 E x > o :o 'o y o u v �, > 3 p y °' C `n co -tea > E a Z' ? y mto co 0o x - -Op • ro �:. T al cn sn V x C A tO CI = c R C G = CV' cy 4 C) C 0 C ri w € I.L. Li V C7 = _ = a -1 .J Li ,° -J -1 -1 7 7 7 2 VI ;n V,' Vj V) VI VJ [A to V' V: :A V: Vi V' VJ Vi VJ VI Vi 'f. V) V1 ✓1 V) V1 co co co co co cO ca ti cc cd cc cc co eC cc ca c6 c0 a cc cc cO cc c0 c6 co pp i E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E V mt cl E co E cu E Ecci E E E E E a a, . . E E co a E E E E crica 77772777777777777777777777 E - E ea 7 0 • a; a K 4 4 3 4 44444444444444444444 o A: PA) w w PPM CO m CD A) w m a'+ W P m ADM P ai w a'+ WH 3 9 5 9 3 5 a 3 3 5 B ? 3 5 5 5 ? 9 5 5 B B 5 C� 5 55 5 9 5 5 5 ' g 5555 a 9 9 B .g a 3 9 s s 5 c td c m so w w m m to 5 6, m w w m m w w m a m AD a+ m w w w N CA N H V V: y LA VI 'J1 CA Vi VI :A CA VI !A IA CA N V: N GA V+ rIl GA me C. y J 2 p' 2. a. n g O N a N C O a, . O O O O O O O O O O O x cm a c c c o n a. '*l G7 0 3 g y v n x R- g- g- a o o a V vo a a r'. a , a n < R 0, o. o 0 0 ? c c o c 3 0 Pr ^° y 7 g ti n �. n -,- CD ry O 'C on y ` __. o5 o y z n c e a a d: c . 1 et 4.3 o< 't '� R o t o a' o o c ". r, �. a y c ro 2 a _ �' ar oo ,3 a- fi 'l M = O Y 0 r r0 •`S O C p` II C "' tiCA. o. ti a o " r o f9 1R = • `,. A i ,t ft o o Z o n C.C• ''' 'n C ? O ye r, CC o c a ot • 7 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z z Z (A Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z CV 0000000 o O O O O O O m O O O O O O O O O O ,9 .7 D 7 7 a a 7 f!7 a 7 7 a 7 .7 7 7 7 7 7 0 o Vi LA Vi CA H h N .-7 VJ CA Vl CA H Vh CA 0 CA H LA CA Vii LA cn„' V CM V p n a c a a a `` 8 a o a & a o. K,',, g. b° a 0. `d. 0- a s c. a VI, ro clo 2 if a Q. r r r, • c ca L. v E .L 7 I. C! c I — c C ii � p p V V ti V 0 N N 0) .0 ) N Q1 �VV 4) V ID V 0) N 'b 0) V y N V C i i i i i i i i y i i i i i i i y i i y i O G G C C C C G G G G G G G G G C G G G C G G G L OOOOOOOOO 5 O O O O O O O O O O mt O O cd O C QCI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C/) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z V) Z Z V) Z Z t: a) O .n 0 0A cu r O Y E z ti VJ 3� 0 03 ' 777^� `+ pa 'izE tcl Z.; 1 Ci . w. V Q L 4y „' �' CY s' Z •� C ti C ti 0 rii .- u E .,„ .----, , :, -'--,, , t - , .z .h ....: E , ... ,.. .?...... z , Q. V �+ r C r O - ? j S C LCS .� C O C O .C• C C ti Q O ° 'IX .C .r -Z W E o .o a • •'� �a • • c ° .. c 0col T) al E, 0) '7 O y CQ O y Ii %l O y • .�C _ bn r �" Z b • O 7 2. —)s m a) es G cn 'a E O = C7 7 'C co r O M C -� G. CU o 61 C 4 > a) w a) o G C ) C a, F6 a) a c it. u C7 — C7 cry `° C� U v x •e~1a O E ° CA X '.— = s ��+ -� EA EA .e0 .as G C G N ei p a, v 3 y a ca = 1- a) N a) a) a) O a) > E p c a) s 'rr on ._e > 0 0 a 'c 3 s e G t co a a a) a s s 0 >, , o o o ;n e/S v) rA I-- H D > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 >- Cu Li e7 au a . . a y'm V/ 0. VJ w Vi h V: VI V) 0 Vi 0 Vi V: V1 ;A Vi v V Vi C V tA N y L' CC a CC C C 03 e193c C ed CC c a CC CC c d C d C d CC c C ca C0 CJ ea CO :A v, cNA el G E e^ E E C E 5 5 c c c c E E E E c G E c C E a) T A.h V a a R CC ea 3 CC 3 es a cod es a ca ca es Ca es ecd es CC es eca aa) aai a) E - - E Ca X 0 4 • to S o x 7o x x x x x x x z x x nnmannannana x x x x x x x to an M 'a ra .a u 12 -0 b ^c$ h b '0 •a la -a b w z n v, v.2 w v, w c v, v, n w w v, cn cn CA H w w O nanronannanannannann = ti: Z "a O. FA CO S < cn CA VI V) V) -v •v •o p z K K 7r: c co .c ra n m cg x• o p A, °' R o a, s v b rA v� rn �. �' .� O .:.. r9 -• D p 2 7r n. O am a• aR a a. K •p Oc :`3' i "r cb H R A = V] R ti c n c o m w o x m = w m y 4 ^ Do j C. ry r a. - x - CD a O. CD , n 7 E = '" `� w a a x r Al = r, CO 06 G = tti AD eD = 2.2 y p7 0 'y r; nl a r n '� ( si y n y r r• n, y Z n Z' y ro `'S p' 3` O .4,- O Z•. `o ro O .1 C `e O 0 P: Z. 7 0 rj g E" ` '. 2 a ^ i`. 2, c ��, H 2 0 �. C C ra C C O O ... J b -n. 4 a 'O k r9 n "p 0 y s n ti p an W C Aa p 3 sr r° b7 c. J r7 z z z z z z z Z z z z z z z z z un z z z R, 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 o V' VJ z y cn Cn H CA w co: CA 'a G y TA fns y• w in• n. a o a a 0.. a 0. 0. a. `0. a. 0. f0. -. Inn 0. O. `rj1 ra nj C) , b 0 T G et f r 2 r 0 APPENDIX C Fish Species Documented in the North 1-25 MS Regional Study Area • • Appendix C THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • i E M y U 77 a) a = X C C 0 0 7i ✓J 77 N N 0 N N a) a) v a) v N F V V V N U 0) 7g -itz 9 U N V N 77) N y y. kA h m 0 0 .= m V: V! �.' fA IA A.+ N fA vI cA m fA y m o C4 m o y m 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q) 1 1 1 1 1 1 a) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 C C C C L.' L' C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C v C C C C C e y C C C C C C C C C o C C C C C C GC • . 'm 'C 'C 'C 'C >. C4 o o 0 o o 'O = o O O o o o u u u u u ( S E— w 0 0 N Lcc! LcS y In co) H A Il y' ≥ 0 a) 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 o W a� a�i a�i a�i o a 8 v U U U U U U U U U U U 0 y U U 0) v 4 0) a 0) 0) 0) 0) 4 0) 0) 0) 0) __ = a) = a a) v N U •p7 Apo C `M _. > > 2 .> > p 0 .> > c .- .- -- -- 00 -- 000 •- .- 0 .- •- - Z Z .C Z . g Z Z = = Z_ Z e Z Z Z Z 5 c Z II Z Z - Z Z C c 6) t C .— fi 'C w fi S CS `E , - � fi fi Cl < o � CA •w U .1e rr. , w , O ,D �, 4 C ti GO • C+ CS O :S a fi f fi L a i:, Y t. i Y I: hr v y. •, r rof • • C 4 y ti Gi. oo 's xti ^� y o u '[o ° y t c o ° � � R 'fi r V I Qc; .c :4U � cn ..)'L) : 4o � � -4auaww � v 4 "a C Q a Id E Z x y o f tu o � I. _ `° a a) Y �_ U U • ': '' F CA C C s V) ,4 a m C7 co A o o mu o u _ con E- c .) o o U 1 . fl C Ir v) 0 9 v D >-. E ° ° .5 ti C 5 I J 0 a0)) ,,,.>1 ,_N4 , O 0 3 ` = E E 0 eel i- >, >, >, 3 s ~ o 0 0 0 di co 00 00 co co co Da m m U U U U U L. C7 Cr c.7 Cd 2 2 2 ^ '1 .a '. Z 0 • tn oZ .< .< ^? rncnv) cncntogo ;n -o -o -_v "oOZ ^. s ^^s co w m 0 n. m C m_ a� w 0 O .. [D O O CO CD CD CI 0 n CD n m O. [n fY •O . y H De O• n co a UUiPi _n 0 r, ^ N Oi frfl. ui Xl n N G O ti O -t rn R Cn a © © PoFr LIs 0. CD C ;n' k O O =4Oz N .Y 0 a IA D! F ,� � t *) n "0tn � N 't ctzno � a � E- 'b n O n g ES' .a Z A C k 2 -, ^ -i P p ^ 3 - 0 .8. t., a ,. , ,Z, z - sr a aa „ r . Z n o c c .. - . .' $ R Q..-"ti n ea rDea a.2 ' -§ o O- , DS- Z t-. r _ V) T. ,:l c ZS R 0 c e 0 G C E. c c c a .— = ^ CV n , co n n N 0 fL et f n�op n '* n f nD n c nD n eFA. fn n e S R. 0. a ry fD n. a. R b. R. C. G. G. p ea o. n CD O ►r rwr. rwn V) v N (D iD fD !D F 'h n n n r; n 0 c 0 0 O O O 0 o O` o o n •� c. c. 0. a. 0. n +' O O O 0 O "S eD ZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z W VI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z VI Z Z CA 0000000000 W y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 y 7 7 7 7 0 0 7 0 7 7 fD 0 7 7 O a a 0 0 7 7 7 7' i V1 :n 7' Vi. i y y• tA' 7 i ;. fn• .4. V1- 7' V: fn a. ra y• 7' a O nfD co nfD co n n nO. O if fD nii (D Ft' N [D 0. (D ry t/1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 n, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. O. 0. 0. 7 p. 0. 0 ^* O(PP Ei C •�► CD 0 R Q. G. ,0O n n 0 • APPENDIX D Recommended Buffer Zones for Colorado Raptors • • Appendix D • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTOR NESTS *These zones and seasonal restrictions are recommended as guidance and may be subject to change. They do not represent official Division policy Prepared By Gerald R. Craig Colorado Division of Wildlife Updated 1/18/02 Tolerance limits to disturbance varies among as well as within raptor species. As a rule, ferruginous hawks and golden eagles respond at greater distances to human activities than do ospreys and kestrels. Some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the species to abandon their nests. Other individuals become sensitized to repeated encroachment and react at greater distances. The tolerance of a particular pair may change when a mate is replaced with a less tolerant individual and may cause the pair to react to activities that were previously ignored. Responses will also vary depending upon the reproductive stage. Although the level of stress is the same, the pair may be more sensitive during egg laying and incubation and more demonstrative when the chicks hatch. The term "disturbance" is also ambiguous and experts disagree on what actually constitutes a disturbance. Reactions may be as subtle as elevated pulse rate and as extreme as vigorous defense or abandonment. Impacts of disturbance may not be immediately evident. A pair of raptors may respond to human intrusion by defending the nest, but well after the disturbance has passed, the male may remain in the vicinity for protection rather than forage to feed the nestlings, Golden Eagles rarely defend their nests, but merely fly a half mile or more away and perch and watch. Chilling and over heating of eggs or chicks and starvation of nestlings can result from human activities that appeared not to have caused an immediate response. A `holistic' approach is recommended when protecting raptor habitat. While it is important for land managers to focus on protecting nest sites, equal attention should focus on defining important foraging areas that support the pairs nesting effort. Hunting habitat of many raptor species are extensive and may necessitate interagency cooperation to assure the continued nest occupancy. Unfortunately, basic knowledge of habitat use is lacking and may require documentation through telemetry investigations or intensive observation. Telemetry is expensive and may be disruptive so a more practical approach is to assume that current open space is important and should be protected. Although there are exceptions, the buffer areas and seasonal restrictions suggested here reflect an informed opinion that if implemented, should assure that the majority of individuals within a • species will continue to occupy the area. Measurements are somewhat imprecise (fractions of a mile) and reflect the need to maintain some flexibility to adjust buffer zones depending upon • intervening terrain and vegetation screens that obscure the activity, This document is intended to be modified and refined as additional information becomes available, hence the need for a revision date. BALD EAGLE, Nest Site: Year round closure to surface occupancy *(beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile radius of nest. No human encroachment from November 15 through July 31 within 1/2 mile radius of the nest. This closure is more extensive than the Northern-States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan due to the generally open habitat used by Colorado's nesting bald eagles. Aside from four Colorado sites in coniferous forests, all others are in cottonwood riparian zones that don't have the vegetational density, and therefore obscurity offered by the habitats in the lake states. Recent evidence suggests that pairs nesting at lower elevations frequent and maintain their nests throughout the year. If it is necessary to work within the 1/2 mile buffer, the intrusion should be restricted to August 15 through October 15. Winter Night Roost: Activity should be eliminated within 1/4 mile radius of winter roosts between November 15 and March 15. If periodic visits (such as oil well maintenance work) are required within the buffer zone after development, activity should be restricted to the period between 1000 and 1400 hours from November 15 to Match 15. Limited restrictions may be necessary out to 1/2 mile if there is a direct line of sight from the roost to the activities. Hunting Perch: Diurnal Perches associated with important foraging areas should also be protected from human encroachment. Preferred perches may be at varying distances from human encroachment and buffer areas will vary. However, at least 2 management plans recommend zones that range from 1/8 mile (200 meters) to '/o mile (400 meters) depending upon topographic or vegetational screening. GOLDEN EAGLE Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile radius of the nest site and associated alternate nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest and any alternate nests from February 1 to July 15. OSPREY Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile of the nest site. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest from April 1 to August 31. Some osprey populations have habituated and are tolerant to human activity in the immediate vicinity of their nests. • * Surface occupaney mean, non-human habitation. e\amples vvmind be oil and gas \\elk. roads_ track,. trails. etc. • FERRUGINOUS HAWK Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/2 mile radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest and any alternate nests from February 1 to July 15. This species is especially prone to nest abandonment during incubation if disturbed. RED-TAILED HAWK Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/3 mile radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Some members of this species have adapted to urbanization and may tolerate human habitation to within 200 yards of thcir nest. Development that encroaches on rural sites is likely to cause abandonment. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment should be in effect from March 1 to July 15. SWAINSON'S HAWK Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/4 mile radius of the nest site, and associated alternate nests. Some members of this species have adapted to urbanization and may tolerate human habitation to within 100 yards of their nest. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/4 mile of the nest from April 1 to July 15. • PEREGRINE FALCON Nest Site: No surface occupancy * (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/2 mile of the nest site. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/2 mile of the nest cliff(s) from March 15 to July 31. A 1-mile buffer with a closure from February 1 to August 31 was originally stipulated in the approved Recovery Plan, but recent field evidence suggests that the zone can be reduced to 1/2 mile. Due to propensity to relocate nest sites, sometimes up to 1/2 mile along cliff faces, it is more appropriate to designate'Nesting Areas' that encompass the cliff system and a 1/2-mile buffer around the cliff complex. PRAIRIE FALCON Nest Site: No surface occupancy * beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1/2 mile radius of the nest site. NORTHERN GOSHAWK Reynolds- et al- (1993) proposed 30 acres for the nest, a post fledging family area of 420 acres, and a foraging area of 5400 acres in size that encompasses habitat for squirrels, rabbits, jays, woodpeckers and grouse. For purposes here, it seems that a buffer of 1/2 mile around the nest should protect the integrity of the nesting and post fledging area. Occupancy of the nesting and brood rearing area takes place from early March through late September. • Surface &,ccupaniv means ❑on-human habitation, examples vuuild be oil and gas \\ell,. roads. tracks. trails. etc. BURROWING OWL Nest Site: No human encroachment or disturbance within 75 yards of the nest site from April 1 through July 31. This period is necessary to avoid disturbing nesting owls. However, owls may be present at burrows up to a month before egg laying and several months after young have fledged. Therefore it is recommended that efforts to eradicate prairie dogs or destroy abandoned towns not occur between March 1 and October 31 when owls may be present. Although owls may occur throughout a prairie dog colony, there is a propensity for them to frequent the colony margins and buffer zones should be applied to the colony perimeter. Measures that protect and enhance prairie dog colonies will benefit this species. Buffers Documented in the Literature Species Period Optimal Authority Incubation Brood Distance Ferruginous Hawk 380-488 yd. 619-781 yd. 781 yd. (.45 mi.) Holmes Red-tailed Hawk 448-553 yd. 428-604 yd. 604 yd. (.34 mi.) Holmes Swainson's Hawk 171-203 yd. 309-382 yd. 382 yd. (.22 mi.) Holmes • Prairie Falcon 500-1000 m 1000m Holthuijzen et al. 546-1093 yd. 1093 yd (.62 mi.) Perch Buffers The following buffers for perches were recommended by T. Holmes(1994)to prevent flushing of 90%of raptors wintering in rangeland and agricultural habitats. SPECIES BUFFER AREA (Radius) American Kestrel 75m Merlin 125m Prairie Falcon 160m Rough-legged Hawk 210m Ferruginous Hawk 140m Golden Eagle 300m * Srl � i• •Surface occupancy ncy means non-human habitation. examples \v ould he oil and gas wells. roads. tracks, trails. etc. • REFERENCES Call, M. 1979. Habitat management guides for birds of prey. Technical Note No.338, U. S- Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO. 69pp. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group 1996. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Management Plan: 1995 update. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 47 pp. Grier, J.W., F.J. Gramlich, 1. Mattisson, J,E. Mathisen, I.V. Kussrnan, J.B. Elder, and N.F. Green. 1983. The bald eagle in the northern United States. Bird Cons. 1-44-66. Holmes, Tamara L. 1993. Behavioral responses of grassland raptors to human disturbance MS Thesis. Colo. State Univ, Ft. Collins. 62p. Holthuijzen, A.M.A., W.G. Eastland, A.R. Ansell, M.N. Kochert, R.D. Williams, and L.S.Young. 1990. Effects of blasting on behavior and productivity of nesting prairie falcons. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:270-281. Martin, D.J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446- 456. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 75p. Reynolds, Richard, R.T. Graham, H.M. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the • northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217- Ft. Collins, CO. U.S. Dept of Agri., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90pp. Richardson, Cary T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(3):634-638. Rocky Mountain/Southwest Peregrine falcon recovery Team. 1984. American peregrine falcon Rocky Mountain/Southwest population recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. 105 pp. Squires, J.H., S.H. Anderson, and R. Oakleaf. 1993. Home range size and habitat use patterns of nesting prairie falcons near oil developments in northeastern Wyoming. J. Field Ornithology. 64:1-10. Swenson, J.E. 1979. Factors affecting status and reproduction of ospreys in Yellowstone National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:595-601. Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport. Condor 73:177-192. • Stir tiice uccupancv means non-human hahilation. eyamhlcs vv Oil ld he oil and gas well. roads. tracks. trails. etc. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • NORTH 1-25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Revised August 2011 Prepared for— Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way Suite 600 Centennial,Colorado 80111 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver,Colorado 80218 (303)830-1188 FHU Ref. 03-225 / 05-071 /05-143 /07-190 • WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH I-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Preferred Alternative 1 Project Area 2 Updates to Existing Conditions 2 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species 3 Other Federally Protected Species (Bald Eagle) 3 Wildlife and Fish Species of Concern 4 Raptors 4 Potential Effects of the Preferred Alternative 5 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 5 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 5 Other Federally Protected Species (Bald Eagle) 7 Wildlife Species of Concern 10 Black-tailed Prairie Dog 10 Swift Fox, Townsend's Big-eared Bat, and Ferruginous Hawk 11 Western Burrowing Owl 11 • Great Blue Heron 12 Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog 12 Common Shiner, Brassy Minnow, Iowa Darter, Stonecat, Cylindrical Papershell, and Plains Snowfly 13 Summary of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 14 Terrestrial Wildlife 14 Big Game, Other Mammals, Migratory Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians 14 Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors 14 Raptors 17 Sensitive Wildlife Habitats 17 Aquatic Resources 18 Summary of Effects to Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Habitat 19 Mitigation and Recommendations 19 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 20 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 20 Other Federally Protected Species 21 Bald Eagle 21 Wildlife Species of Concern 21 Black-tailed Prairie Dog 21 Western Burrowing Owl 22 Great Blue Heron 22 • Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog 23 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • State Sensitive Fish 23 Invertebrates 24 Terrestrial Wildlife 25 Big Game and Movement Corridors 25 Other Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians 26 Birds 27 Aquatic Resources 28 List of Preparers and Contacts Made 28 Preparers 28 Project Description and Plans Provided By 28 References 28 TABLES Page No. Table 1. Summary of Effects to Occupied Preble's Habitat from the Preferred Alternative 6 Table 2. Summary of Effects to Potential Preble's Habitat from the Preferred Alternative 6 • Table 3. Summary of Effects to Bald Eagle Forage Habitat as defined by CDOW from the Preferred Alternative 9 Table 4. Summary of Important Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat within 3 Miles of Nests and Roosts and Effects from Preferred Alternative 10 Table 5. Summary of Effects to Black-tailed Prairie Dog Occupied Habitat from the Preferred Alternative 11 Table 6. Summary of Effects to Other State Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern Potentially Affected by the Preferred Alternative 11 Table 7. Summary of Effects to Potential Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake Habitat from the Preferred Alternative 12 Table 8. Summary of Direct Effects to Habitat for State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species from the Preferred Alternative 13 Table 9. Summary of Direct Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Habitat under the Preferred Alternative, in Acres 14 Table 10. Effects to Wildlife Movement Corridors from the Preferred Alternative 16 Table 11. Summary of Raptor Nests within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area from the Preferred Alternative 17 Table 12. Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from the Preferred Alternative 18 Table 13. Summary of Effects to Aquatic Habitat from the Preferred Alternative 19 Table 14. Summary of Effects to Wildlife Habitat from the Preferred Alternative 19 • ii WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Figures Figure 1. North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area Figure 2. North 1-25 EIS Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Data Figure 3. North I-25 EIS Bald Eagle NDIS Data Figure 4. North I-25 EIS Wildlife Habitat—Northern Region Figure 5. North I-25 EIS Wildlife Habitat—Central Region Figure 6. North I-25 EIS Wildlife Habitat— Southern Region Figure 7. North 1-25 EIS Wildlife Crossings and Wildlife Road Kill Data—Northern Region Figure 8. North 1-25 EIS Wildlife Road Kill Data and Wildlife Crossings—Central Region Figure 9. North I-25 EIS Wildlife Road Kill Data and Wildlife Crossings—Southern Region • • iii WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDLM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • iv • WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH I-25 EIS ADAMS, BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO AUGUST 2011 Introduction The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) for alternatives to improve transportation facilities in an area known as the North Interstate 25 (1-25) EIS regional study area (regional study area) (). A Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008) was prepared in support of the North I-25 Draft EIS (DEIS) (CDOT 2008) to address issues related to the potential effects on wildlife of state concern, migratory birds, and other wildlife resources in the project area. The Wildlife Technical Report and DEIS addressed impacts to wildlife from two alternatives, Package A and Package B. These study results were discussed in the DEIS. • Following release of the DEIS and public comments, a Preferred Alternative was developed that included components from Packages A and B. CDOT is preparing a Final EIS that will analyze the Preferred Alternative and present impacts associated with all three alternatives. This Wildlife Technical Report Addendum was prepared to analyze the effects of the Preferred Alternative to wildlife, including federal- and state-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. This report includes a brief description of the Preferred Alternative, existing conditions in the project area where conditions have changed since preparation of the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008), a description of impacts of the Preferred Alternative, and proposed mitigation measures. Preferred Alternative The proposed project consists of highway and transit improvements in the area from Fort Collins south to Denver. The Preferred Alternative includes the following elements: • 1 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • • I-25 Highway Improvements: One new general purpose lane in each direction of I-25 between State Highway 66 (S11 66) and State Highway 14 (SH 14), one buffer-separated Tolled Express Lane (TEL) in each direction of I-25 from the existing High Occupancy Vehicle/toll lanes at 84th Avenue to SH 14, and upgrades to 16 interchanges along the I-25 corridor. • 1-25 Express Bus: Express bus service with 13 stations along I-25, U.S. 34, and Harmony Road with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver; and from Fort Collins to Denver International Airport (DIA). • U.S. 85 Commuter Bus: Commuter bus service with eight stations along U.S. 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. Queue jump lanes would be constructed at intersections along U.S. 34 (12) and U.S. 85 (10). It is assumed for purposes of this analysis that queue jumps will be constructed within the footprint of the existing roadway. • Commuter Rail Transit: Commuter rail service with nine stations connecting Fort Collins to Longmont and Thornton using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad, generally paralleling U.S. 287 and tying into the FasTracks north metro rail in Thornton, which will connect to downtown Denver. Passengers also may connect to the FasTracks northwest rail in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. Project Area • The project area is unchanged from the Wildlife Technical Report. The width of the project area varies depending on the species. For most wildlife species, the project area extends 0.5 mile from the center line of 1-25 or from the center line of the proposed rail alignment. For bald eagles, the project area extends 1 mile from the center line of 1-25 or the proposed rail alignment. For less-mobile species, such as prairie dogs and most invertebrates, the project area extends 150 feet from the center line of 1-25 or the proposed rail alignment. Updates to Existing Conditions Impacts to wildlife from Packages A and B were analyzed in the DEIS and the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008). No new surveys were prepared for this Addendum to the Wildlife Technical Report, with the exception of nesting raptor surveys. Surveys for nesting raptors, including eagles, were conducted during late winter 2009/2010 and spring 2010. Wildlife distribution data from Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW)Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) was updated as necessary to reflect changes in the NDIS database after completion of the Wildlife • 2 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH I-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Technical Report. Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) data were updated based on trapping data available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Bald eagle nest sites and nesting activity were updated based on data available from the NDIS and Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species ERO reviewed Service trapping data within the regional study area and determined that no new populations of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse(Preble's) (Zapus hudsonius preblei) have been identified within 1 stream mile of the project area since completion of the Wildlife Technical Report 0. Final revised critical habitat for Preble's was designated on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78429), but no critical habitat occurs in the project area (Service 2010). No other federally listed wildlife species are likely to occur within or near the project area. The mountain plover(Charadrius montanus) is proposed for federal listing under the ESA and is a Colorado species of concern. In 2002, the Service proposed listing the • mountain plover as a threatened species under the ESA. In 2003, the Service concluded that the threats to the mountain plover were not as significant as previously believed, and withdrew the listing proposal. In 2010, as part of a court settlement, the Service reinstated their 2002 proposal to list the mountain plover as a threatened species under the ESA. The Service will submit a final listing determination for the mountain plover by May 1, 2011. Other Federally Protected Species (Bald Eagle) Six bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests are within 3 miles of the project area, as described in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008) (). These nests continue to be monitored by the RMBO Bald Eagle Watch Program (RMBO 2008, 2009, 2010). Nesting data from each nest between 2008 and early 2010 are provided below: • ELC Nest—A pair of adult bald eagles attempted to nest near this site in 2009 and failed before constructing the existing nest at its present location. Eagles returned in 2010 and successfully hatched two young. • Windsor Nest—This site has been used by nesting bald eagles since 2002. The nest fledged two eaglets in 2008, and one eaglet in 2009 (RMBO 2008, • 2009). The nest successfully hatched one young in 2010. 3 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Berthoud Nest—A pair of eagles nested at this site in 2007. Nesting success at this nest was unknown in 2008, and two eaglets were fledged in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). The nest successfully hatched three young in 2010. • Longmont/St. Vrain Nest—This nest produced one fledgling in 2008 and two fledglings in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). The nest successfully hatched two young in 2010. • Delcamino/Boulder Creek Nest—This nest has been active since 2003. This nest fledged three eaglets in 2008 and none in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). This nest was not successful in 2009, but successfully hatched one young in 2010. • Thornton Nest—This nest fledged two eaglets in 2008 and one eaglet in 2009 (RMBO 2008, 2009). The nest successfully hatched two young in 2010. In addition to the six nest sites, a pair of bald eagles has been observed exhibiting courtship and pre-breeding behavior in the northeast section of Fossil Creek Reservoir (RMBO 2010). Wildlife and Fish Species of Concern No additional surveys for wildlife species of concern were conducted. Fish sampling • conducted by Ficke and Myrick (2007) at the St. Vrain River and 1-25 provided more details about the fish community. Fish sampling studies confirmed the occurrence of the state-listed threatened brassy minnow(Hybognathus hankinsoni) at this location, and also indicated that the fish species at this location are largely exotics and common natives. New information from NDIS has been incorporated into the figures and analysis contained within this report. Raptors In response to comments from the Service, ERO conducted surveys within 0.5 mile of the regional study area for active or potentially active raptor nests in late winter 2009 and spring 2010. Surveys were conducted from public roads prior to leaf-out to identify existing nest structures, in March to identify active great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and red-tailed hawk(Buteojamaicensis) nests, and again in late April/early May to identify active Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) nests. Forty-nine active nest sites were identified within 0.5 mile of the various project components (, , and). The species composition of the active nests consisted of 28 red-tailed hawk, eight great horned owl, • 4 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO seven Swainson's hawk, five unidentified hawks, and one osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Additionally, eight potentially suitable unoccupied nests were identified. This survey represents the minimum number of active nests during the year of the survey (2010). Many great-horned owls nest in tree hollows, structures, and other locations that are hard to find, and Swainson's hawks are just starting to nest in late April. It is likely that additional nests were constructed or some unoccupied nests would become active as the season progressed. Potential Effects of the Preferred Alternative Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species The Preferred Alternative would result in impacts to potential Preble's habitat. No other federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species [black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) and Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida)] would be affected by the Preferred Alternative because those species do not occur in the project area. Effects to Platte River species in Nebraska [whooping crane(Grus americana), 4111 least tern(Sternula antillarum), Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea)] due to depletions are included in the Biological Assessment (ERO 2010). The Proposed Action would not result in depletions and would have no indirect effects on whooping crane, least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, or western prairie fringed orchid. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse A biological assessment (BA)has been prepared for the Preferred Alternative (ERO 2011). During preparation of the BA, ERO conducted a review of available trapping data. Preble's is unlikely to occur in the majority of the project area, with the exception of the Big Thompson River at I-25 and the Little Thompson River at I-25, which are considered occupied habitat. Suitable habitat is present at the Cache la Poudre River at I-25, the Big Thompson River at the BNSF alignment, the Little Thompson River at the BNSF alignment, and the St. Vrain River at I-25 and SH 119; however, extensive trapping near these sites has not captured Preble's. These trapping surveys • were conducted during the period from 1998 to 2009, and by the time the project is 5 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • constructed, these trapping surveys could be more than 20 years old. For the purposes of calculating impacts, these sites are considered potential Preble's habitat. These sites will be reassessed and potentially surveyed beginning 2 years prior to construction. Surveys would follow the Preble's trapping protocol approved by the Service at the time. Preble's is assumed to be present at the Big Thompson River at I-25 and Little Thompson River at I-25. These sites also will be reassessed and possibly surveyed for Preble's prior to construction of the project. Summaries of effects to occupied and potential Preble's habitat are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Table 1. Summary of Effects to Occupied Preble's Habitat from the Preferred Alternative Component r Location Acres of Habitat 1-25 Improvements: SH 14 to SH 66 Big Thompson River at 1-25 0.47 Little Thompson River at 1-25 0.25 Total 0.72 Table 2. Summary of Effects to Potential Preble's Habitat from the • Preferred Alternative Component Location Acres of Habitat 1-25 Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 No major drainages 0 1-25 Improvements: SH 14 to SH 66 ' Cache la Poudre River at 1-25 1.16 1-25 Improvements: SH 66 to SH 7 St. Vrain River at 1-25 0.05 1-25 Improvements: SH 7 to U.S. 36 Within block clearance zone NA Big Thompson River at BNSF, Little 0.08 Commuter Rail Transit Thompson River at BNSF St. Vrain River at SH 119 0.06 Total 1.35 Packages A and B would have resulted in impacts to 0.81 and 0.80 acres of occupied Preble's habitat, respectively. The Preferred Alternative would result in less impact (0.72 acres) to occupied Preble's habitat than either Package A or Package B. Impacts to potential Preble's habitat were not quantified in the DEIS, but based on the reduction in impacts throughout the project area, the impacts to potential Preble's habitat from the Preferred Alternative likely would be less than from Packages A and B. • 6 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Mountain Plover The mountain plover is a bird of the dry tablelands and Colorado Plateau, nesting primarily in shortgrass prairie sites. The habitat requirements of this bird generally consist of open, flat tablelands and short, intensively grazed grasslands. Plovers nest in areas with extensive patches (30 percent or more) of bare ground and are often found in disturbed habitats, burned prairie, fallow agricultural fields, and prairie dog colonies (Knopf and Wunder 2006). Plovers avoid vegetation greater than 6 inches in height and hillsides or steep slopes. Known mountain plover nesting sites in Colorado are in eastern and southeastern Colorado and South Park(Kuenning and Kingery 1998). Threats to mountain plover include conversion of grassland, changing agricultural practices on wintering areas in California, energy and mineral development, loss of breeding habitat associated with burrowing mammals, human disturbance, direct and indirect effects of pesticides, and influences of annual weather variation. Very little suitable habitat for mountain plovers occurs in the project area and there • are no recent records of breeding mountain plovers in the project area(CNHP 2010; Breeding Bird Atlas Explorer 2010; COBBA 11 2010). Due to the paucity of suitable habitat, high levels of human disturbance, and the lack of any recent observations, it is not likely that mountain plovers currently nest in the project area. No potential habitat for mountian plovers exists within existing highway or railroad rights-of-way due to disturbance from traffic, mowing, and maintenance activities; and the topography of side slopes designed to enhance drainage. However, some areas of new construction for the Preferred Alternative occur within the range of mountain plovers (NDIS 2010). Suitable breeding or stopover habitat for plovers within or near the study area experience high levels of human disturbance that likely preclude plover use. Human disturbance includes existing highway and railroad traffic,urbanization, and residential/commercial development. Other Federally Protected Species (Bald Eagle) The types of potential impacts to bald eagles were previously discussed in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008). Current data indicate that a single new active nest occurs within 0.5 mile of the project components as of the 2009/2010 breeding • 7 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • season. This nest site is on the Cache la Poudre River, south of the Colorado State University Environmental Learning Center(ELC) in Fort Collins (known as the ELC nest) 0. A breeding pair of bald eagles attempted to nest at this location in 2009 and failed. In 2010, the pair established a new nest 0.47 mile from the existing I-25 corridor and within 0.42 mile of the proposed highway improvements in the Preferred Alternative. The nest is on property owned by the Box Elder Water and Sanitation District, and was selected by the eagles despite extensive human activities consisting of regular train traffic on the nearby railroad tracks, aggregate mining and restoration, traffic on I-25 and local roads, recreational activities along the river, and residential development all within 1 mile of the nest. Several other bald eagle nests are known to occur near the project area, but are more than 0.5 mile from any project components (). New breeding pairs of bald eagles could construct nests within 0.5 mile of the project area in the future, or a pair of eagles using one of the existing nests could relocate to a new nest closer to the project area. If construction activities occur within 0.5 mile of an active nest during the courting or • breeding season, effects could include behavioral disturbance and potential nest abandonment. The communal winter roost at Fossil Creek Reservoir()would not be adversely affected by the Preferred Alternative because the upgrades to the interchange at SH 392 are now part of a separate action and are no longer part of the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would affect the bald eagle roost on St. Vrain River. The proposed rail alignment from Longmont to Denver would run parallel to SH 119 on the north side of the highway, crossing St. Vrain River via a new bridge north of SH 119. Construction of the commuter rail would impact 0.08 acre of riparian habitat mapped as a roost, and about 4.51 acres within the 0.25-mile buffer around the roost. These impacts are the same as under Package A. Although it is unlikely that bald eagles actually roost immediately adjacent to SH 119 (a busy highway), the loss of riparian habitat in this area would reduce the amount of available roosting habitat further upstream. Bald eagle roosting areas change from year to year, and new roosting areas could become established or existing roosts could be abandoned by the time of construction; therefore, • 8 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO the effects described above should be considered representative of effects that could occur when the commuter rail is constructed after 2030. Two types of impacts to bald eagle foraging habitat were analyzed and discussed in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008)—impacts to foraging habitat(as mapped by CDOW) and important foraging habitat defined as prairie dog colonies or open water within 3 miles of a nest or communal winter night roost. Direct impacts to foraging habitat(as mapped by CDOW) under the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of Effects to Bald Eagle Forage Habitat as defined by CDOW from the Preferred Alternative Component Acres of Habitat I-25 Improvements 211.05 _ 1-25 Express Bus Service 0 U.S. 85 Commuter Bus 4.24 Commuter Rail Transit 15.91 Total 231.20 • Table 4 shows existing important bald eagle foraging habitat within 3 miles of the project area. Table 4 also shows impacts to prairie dog colonies within this 3-mile buffer under the Preferred Alternative. Important foraging habitat is defined as prairie dog colonies or open water within 3 miles of a bald eagle nest or roost. • 9 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 ES-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIM ER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Table 4. Summary of Important Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat within 3 Miles of Nests and Roosts and Effects from Preferred Alternative Nest or Roost within Prairie dog Open water Important Preferred 3 miles of project colonies within 3- foraging habitat Alternative impacts area within 3- mile buffer within 3 miles to prairie dogs mile buffer (acres) (acres)2 within 3-mile buffer (acres)1 (acres)3 1-25 Improvements: SH 14 to SH 66: Fossil Creek Reservoir roost; 864 3,167 4,031 21.0 ELC nest; Windsor nest 1-25 Improvements: SH 7 t U.S. 36: Thornton 1,956 424 2,381 28.6 nest Commuter Rail Transit: Berthoud nest; Longmont/St. Vrain nest; Delcamino/ 824 2,976 3,800 8.6 Boulder Creek nest; St. Vrain/Boulder Creek roosts Total 3,644 6,567 10,212 58.2 Prairie dogs mapped by CDOW in 2002,not field verified. 2Prairie dogs(acres)+open water(acres). 'Direct impacts to prairie dogs mapped by ERO in 2006. The Preferred Alternative would directly affect 58.2 out of 10,212 acres of important foraging habitat for bald eagles in the area. The impacts from Packages A and B would be 35.8 and 40.0 acres, respectively. Each of the three alternatives would affect less than 1 percent of the important foraging habitat in the area. Wildlife Species of Concern Black-tailed Prairie Dog The types of effects to black-tailed prairie dogs are addressed in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008). Prairie dogs occurring within the project area will need to be relocated, removed, or humanely euthanized according to CDOT's prairie dog policy (CDOT 2009). Effects to black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat, as it exists in 2010, under the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 5. • 10 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 5. Summary of Effects to Black-tailed Prairie Dog Occupied Habitat from the Preferred Alternative Component Acres of Habitat 1-25 Improvements 70.98 1-25 Express Bus 6.69 _ U.S. 85 Commuter Bus 0 Commuter Rail Transit 8.74 Total 86.41 The Preferred Alternative would directly affect 86.41 acres of occupied prairie dog habitat, which would be greater than the effects from Package A (60.32 acres)but less than the effects from Package B (97.68 acres). Swift Fox, Townsend's Big-eared Bat, and Ferruginous Hawk The types of effects to other sensitive species (swift fox, Townsend's big-eared bat, and ferruginous hawk) were addressed in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008). Direct effects to these species under the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 6 (Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found., and Error! • Reference source not found.). Impacts were evaluated qualitatively and no discernable difference was found between the Preferred Alternative and Packages A and B. Table 6. Summary of Effects to Other State Threatened, Endangered,and Species of Special Concern Potentially Affected by the Preferred Alternative Common Name Type of Effect Relative Magnitude of Effect Swift fox Potential loss of foraging habitat and Minimal—disturbed areas would displacement during and after be low quality habitat for this construction. species, on fringes of occupied range. Townsend's big- Potential loss of foraging habitat and Minimal—no caves or mines that eared bat displacement during and after could provide roosting or construction. hibernation sites would be affected. Ferruginous hawk Potential loss of foraging habitat. Minimal—no nesting habitat would be disturbed. Western Burrowing Owl The Preferred Alternative would affect 86.41 acres of prairie dog colonies, which could indirectly affect burrowing owls because prairie dog colonies provide suitable nesting habitat for this species (Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference • 11 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH I-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • source not found., and Error! Reference source not found.). This effect would be greater than the effects from Package A (60.32 acres) but less than the effects from Package B (97.68 acres). Burrowing owls have been known to nest in the prairie dog colony near the proposed express bus station at U.S. 34 and SH 257 (Error! Reference source not found.). No other burrowing owls are known to nest within the project arca. No work will occur in prairie dog towns while burrowing owls are present, thereby avoiding direct effects to burrowing owls. Work will either occur outside the time the owls are present in Colorado from March 15 to October 31 (CDOW 2008), or prairie dog towns will be surveyed prior to construction to confirm that owls are not present. Great Blue Heron The types of effects to great blue herons were addressed in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). No heron nesting areas (rookeries) would be directly impacted by the Preferred Alternative, and no buffer areas surrounding three active rookeries would be impacted (, , and). No new impacts would occur within the 0.31-mile(500-meter) buffer around the great blue heron nesting area at Ish Reservoir, a new great blue heron • nesting area northeast of SH 7 and Colorado Boulevard; and a new nesting area south of the ELC, east of Fort Collins. No impacts are expected to occur within the buffers around other great blue heron nesting areas. Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog The types of effects to the common gartersnake and northern leopard frog were addressed in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). Impacts to habitat for common gartersnakes and northern leopard frogs under the Preferred Alternative are shown in Table 7. Table 7. Summary of Effects to Potential Northern Leopard Frog and Common Gartersnake Habitat from the Preferred Alternative Component Acres of Habitat I-25 Improvements 13.40 I-25 Express Bus 0.71 U.S. 85 Commuter Bus 0 Commuter Rail Transit 3.38 Total 17.49 • 12 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO The Preferred Alternative would directly impact 17.49 acres of habitat for the common gartersnake and northern leopard frog. This effect would be less than the effects from Package A (20.14 acres) and Package B (21.28 acres). Common Shiner, Brassy Minnow, Iowa Darter, Stonecat, Cylindrical Papershell, and Plains Snowily The types of effects to habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species such as the common shiner,brassy minnow, Iowa darter, stonecat, cylindrical papershell, and plains snowfly(Mesocapnia frisoni) were addressed in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). Table 8 summarizes the direct effects to habitat for state- listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species from the Preferred Alternative. Table S. Summary of Direct Effects to Habitat for State Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species from the Preferred Alternative Component Aquatic Habitat Activity Acres • (Species Potentially Directly Affected) Affected Cache la Poudre Replace existing bridges at 1-25 River(brassy minnow northbound, 1-25 southbound, and Iowa darter) and Harmony Road 0.15 1-25 Improvements: SH 14 to SH 66 Big Thompson River Replace existing bridges at 1-25 (Iowa darter) northbound, 1-25 southbound, 0.14 and 1-25 service road 1-25 Improvements: SH St.Vrain River No action at existing bridges at 60 to SH 7 (common shiner, 1-25 0 brassy minnow, Iowa darter, and stonecat) Big Thompson River Construct new tracks and (Iowa darter) crossing adjacent to existing 0.03 crossing Commuter Rail Transit St. Vrain River Construct new rail alignment (common shiner, and bridge on the north side of 0.06 brassy minnow, Iowa SH 119 darter, and stonecat) Total 0.38 The Preferred Alternative would directly affect 0.38 acre of habitat for state threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic species. Impacts would be the same for Package A (0.38 acre) and slightly less for Package B (0.35 acre). • 13 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Summary of Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species As described above, the Preferred Alternative would affect several threatened, endangered, and special status species. Table 9 summarizes the direct effects to threatened, endangered, and special status species habitat under the Preferred Alternative. Table 9. Summary of Direct Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Habitat under the Preferred Alternative, in Acres Component Preble's Bald Bald Prairie Northern Sensitive Occupied Eagle Eagle Dogs Leopard Frog Fish Forage Roosts and Common Species Gartersnake 1-25 Improvements 0.72 211.05 0 70.98 13.40 0.29 1-25 Express Bus 0 0 0 6.69 0.71 0 U.S. 85 0 4.24 0 0 0 0 Commuter Bus Commuter Rail 0 15.91 5.05 8.74 3.38 0.09 Transit Total 0.72 231.20 5.05 86.41 17.49 0.38 Terrestrial Wildlife Big Game, Other Mammals,Migratory Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians Effects to big game, other mammals, migratory birds, reptiles, and amphibians are described in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). These effects were generally qualitative and are unchanged under the Preferred Alternative. The most substantial effects to these species would result from habitat fragmentation. Potential impacts to wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors are described in more detail below under Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors. Wildlife Crossing Areas and Movement Corridors Existing wildlife crossings based on geographic features, such as streams and ridgelines, NDIS, and road kill data, are presented in , , and . The types of effects to wildlife crossing areas and movement corridors were addressed in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). As described in the Wildlife Technical Report, construction of fences and retaining walls can create a barrier to movements by wildlife. The DEIS and Wildlife Technical Report describes construction of a chain link fence along the entire • 14 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • length of the commuter rail alignment for safety purposes. Construction of a chain link fence under current conditions would create a substantial barrier to wildlife movements. Fencing decisions for the commuter rail alignment would be made based on conditions at the time of construction (estimated to be 50 to 60 years in the future). Wildlife-friendly fences would be used, as appropriate, at the time of construction to reduce impacts to wildlife movements. Table 10 summarizes effects to wildlife movement corridors from the Preferred Alternative. Effects to wildlife movement corridors were assessed qualitatively and are generally the same as under Package A, except that impacts would be greatly reduced by incorporating wildlife friendly fencing wherever possible. • • 15 E a Y J -5 N J y0 -° 0 0 rn • m -0 -0 ES a) oo do co o 1E co tho m� � m)UcL3 �Uc 0 p 3 ,� mUmC -= O cL3 .3 O E ?o�- a E � o cm o >.m u 2mmy0 m3 E - fo x °° mac) o .x ❑ m "r< co mE 3j m $ `° o m c.) a>J E m 0 p 3 a m m o L o m m E .- Y v_ m m m .c a a) a m z 3 m�' o 3 0 . E c v, o m °) m e o m mL.. C -0 > U m « .-c041) 'p m m L m t. o m c E m U C N 0 O O a) N c m O w m a) c a) c •'m m O m C U 0 c E z O 0 E 3 o n C 7 ELO § - _ dL_co O 'O g.) a) 0) n❑ E > C .Q O m ~ .L IT cm. 3 OO n j C C O -500o , p t° E u"i t Z o o a c 3 m o 3 a m wo to 3 ~ °) m m ° u) w a°F- E p O etc, P a) N N N m o a o N N O N 5 m E C -- > C u— E la v, 3 in v CL �° >, cu c Dm r -° >.373-0 = >.3 a 2 a oaw3 m ° J0U o - aE mam2oc m a m t > c '° _o 08 a d at s if a) .c a s ma ❑ 3 E m O :.° c y > N c ' ' L c.- O c (a L m a) m J m 3 3 -1° C >f° 0 a < > o � m � 02, E IrcoLI -cE o — VC C O H Co CO O m «- C CO t o E j .0 m a o 0 C 0 C 0 0 ° y E 3 U > t or co ~ ww'oa cco LcWacoaE and moc `a) a >F - E y W C 3 0— m'— o m en O — 2 E p O .- m m c > c > O .E c O 0)(. C Z 0 -oy 2acia wr `o c, Eac_o . o02d� SaEaE 2a` Ummmo) O d N a co a 'O = C m E E O)'c N E `O -2 w y $12 w --- L_ C U or `o Ca0 a > oa ono o.:0 c o co-5 a m a a c m o a-o ° 0 -1 d� Zo U.� a E000 U23 ° a ° U ,`` 3 ° z3z3U0'3Ecmof � o z > 'a ❑Co o d C C N O O E N O. N a a Q H < W J O) m O V Z N N V V) ° y m r (6 c V Yi L m D? N c 3 a) N a — p a to D N c m ' 002 Po -c -5 -- .m — l > E .. y — m m -- mmax) a N J '0 0 c a J •- )° N C a) ' z d oo a0E > — — occal- m- 00 V) u u) z C 2 m e > x E o s d m o > m a F S ,cmi a - c `m a J p — O O yam- E > Y 0 w 1_ 55 E ` o n N > O V c ° C d 9 N N N 0 N a) Z aj ,- m m m— E C c a ca ca xa m am am - ammo 'a, o Uc >s, co .-_ma a 2 C O CO t U p 0 m C N `° U (° D N m 3 y0 t° 3 `—° >o u. p .� Ti C O TO L p E m 9 m O m O c 0 - O 2 ❑ z' " 'Y" w N c01- 00 m U N LO o a) O a) N LL a N @ n E (a 0 0) o C O x o)� ° 0 m '� - dam m m m> am Ecc o U W a ` li w d n p m o o t w y o o N K ..,03 Z m Dr 'c0� > > w OLLY uia 7 � co -o E m oY• ad co O. c) c_o •.O Cow — .O- m N j E co `) Z m c — 0 - ° Z .m Z m ❑ p. N.h oN Nm N• 7DC > m ya •-a. •or nm 0) > 0 NN a).) > dco naxi � m�cE axi a�i� o ❑ E a3 n a mau'i� a� Ljj °) E �� ❑ ro0 O o c c E' o c ° co d aN z a, o «p c) 0).5 O a-o (p C E O N cn- Z �FH aOE I- 2ELL J 'w2o Z Z COna.oz .E) E °LLj 2 cu < w " W ❑ " = 0 CN Y N m O) 0 0 N CD W ❑ — O N D (n r ° gin g0°a>- o _ 0 —> 00 °-o . � m a) m To °> >_ N ,0Co3V ❑ V y o N L N $: CC N c J N a _Ti Y 2 n °) m U C C +. = a 2 0Cl-- o ~ NJ 0003mx (j 0 0 door / COEmJ N a - -owe C a) C C mY Y la a- m 2 m a.- . in C p (° a a U m L N .% r c . 0 �i= m -Co > O J > G O > > — N -o a) ❑ m m 'N E N a) m = m N is N co-, > o m ._ L )O .- a) L .% ' LO.2 o) O O o L Z .> N — E 2 m W Z U 2 r N a' d I-N f7 N it LL U Q1 Z Z LL I—J a' co N c it LL U CO CO C m m(° 6 NM m O C a) S a) co N � NU N mlY e o EU E E E 7 m an d N a °) p m 2 d $ a) a 45. 45' Y Lo p o " `O. > `° o x E E '-m • rC o inn II) O. )° n(° to v) m EEC Fi c' Er t"' Er Er N E2 N O . o o (n _ m000I- WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AucusT 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMF,R,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Raptors The types of effects to raptors were addressed in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). Based on comments received on the DEIS, nesting raptor surveys were updated in 2010 using a 0.5-mile buffer around nests instead of the 0.25-mile buffer used during surveys for the DEIS. Table 11 summarizes the number of raptor nests within 0.5 mile of the project area. Table 11. Summary of Raptor Nests within 0.5 Mile of the Project Area from the Preferred Alternative Component Number of Nests 1-25 Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 4 1-25 Improvements: SH 14 to SH 66 22 1-25 Improvements: SH 66 to SH 7 13 1-25 Improvements: SH 7 to U.S. 36 7 1-25 Express Bus* 0 U.S. 85 Commuter Bus* 1 Commuter Rail Transit* 10 Total 57 . 'Where a raptor nest was within 0.5 mile of both a transit and highway component,the effect was assigned to the highway component. The actual number of nests is likely to be different at the time of construction, but these numbers are representative of the effects that could occur. The number of nests within 0.5 mile of Package A is 49 and the number of nests within 0.5 mile of Package B is 43. There are more nests within 0.5 mile of the Preferred Alternative; however, it is important to consider raptor nests within the context of existing conditions. Forty-six of the 57 recorded nests occur within 0.5 mile of 1-25 and existing levels of disturbance from road construction and traffic. The raptors using these nests are acclimated to high levels of existing disturbance. Sensitive Wildlife Habitats The types of impacts to sensitive wildlife habitats are described in the Wildlife Technical Report (ERO 2008). Table 12 summarizes effects to sensitive wildlife habitat from the Preferred Alternative. • 17 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 201 I ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 12. Summary of Effects to Sensitive Wildlife Habitat from the Preferred Alternative Component Affected Sensitive Habitat Area 1-25 Improvements: No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and SH 1 to SH 14 long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat would be minor. 1-25 Improvements: Riparian and wetland habitat at the Cache la Poudre River SH 14 to SH 66 (1.16 acres), Big Thompson River(0.47 acre), and Little Thompson River(0.25 acre)would be affected by highway widening and bridge replacement under this component. I -25 Improvements: Sensitive riparian habitat also occurs along St. Vrain River SH 66 to SH 7 near 1-25, but no changes are proposed to the 1-25 bridge over the St. Vrain River. 1-25 Improvements: No effects to sensitive habitat are expected under this SH 7 to U.S. 36 component. 1-25 Express Bus No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and no long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat are expected. IU.S. 85 Commuter Bus No additional lanes are proposed under this component, and no long-term effects to sensitive wildlife habitat are expected. Commuter Rail Transit No direct impacts to riparian and wetland habitat at the Big Thompson River are expected from the rail alignment and bridge replacement. Riparian habitat at the Little Thompson River would not be directly affected by the rail alignment and bridge replacement; however, indirect effects to the Potential Conservation Area designated by CNHP could result. The • wildlife crossing area near Ish Reservoir also could be affected by fences and retaining walls, which would create a barrier to wildlife movement. Riparian and wetland habitat at the St. Vrain River(0.06 acre)would be affected by construction of a new bridge crossing. The Preferred Alternative would directly affect 1.94 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat. Impacts would be less than impacts from Package A (2.01 acres) and Package B (2.35 acres). Aquatic Resources The types of effects to aquatic resources are described in the Wildlife Technical Report(ERO 2008). The effects to aquatic habitat from the Preferred Alternative are summarized in (Table 13). • 18 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 13. Summary of Effects to Aquatic Habitat from the Preferred Alternative Component Location Affected Habitat(acres) 1-25 Improvements Cache la Poudre River, Big 1.54 Thompson River, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain River, Big Dry Creek, and various ditches and roadside ponds 1-25 Express Bus 0 U.S. 85 Commuter Bus 0 Commuter Rail Transit 0 Total 1.54 The Preferred Alternative would directly affect 1.54 acres of aquatic habitat. Impacts would be less than impacts from Package A (1.82 acres) and Package B (2.25 acres). Summary of Effects to Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Habitat As described above, the Preferred Alternative would affect both terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Impacts to wildlife habitat from the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 14. • Table 14. Summary of Effects to Wildlife Habitat from the Preferred Alternative Component Number of Number of Sensitive Aquatic Raptor Nests Movement Wildlife Habitat(acres) Corridors Habitat(acres) 1-25 Improvements 46 4 1.88 1.54 1-25 Express Bus 0 0 0 0 U.S. 85 Commuter Bus 1 0 0 0 Commuter Rail Transit 10 6 0.06 0 Total 57 10 1.94 1.54 Mitigation and Recommendations This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife will be incorporated into the proposed project, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. • 19 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • The proposed project area falls within the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, an agreement between the CDOT, CDOW, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Service. The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative included a BA and mitigation measures for FHWA funding of CDOT's routine maintenance and upgrade of existing transportation corridors in eastern Colorado for a 20-year period beginning in 2003. The BA includes all of I-25 within Colorado. A Biological Opinion (BO) was issued by the Service, which covers the bald eagle and 29 species of concern (Service 2003). The BO includes a list of measures to minimize effects to the bald eagle, including protecting off-site shortgrass prairie habitat and implementation of on-site BMPs. The BO also includes proposed conservation measures for sensitive nonlisted species such as the black-tailed prairie dog; burrowing owl; native fish and mussels (including brassy minnow, common shiner, plains minnow, and cylindrical papershell); and northern leopard frog. The BO lists BMPs for each of these species, and provides that if any of these species are listed, the appropriate protective measures will be incorporated into the BO. The Shortgrass Prairie Initiative does not cover Preble's (Service 2003). Specific mitigation recommendations, in addition to those in the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, are described below. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse • Mitigation measures for occupied Preble's habitat may be required as part of Section 7 consultation with the Service for impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species. Mitigation measures will focus on avoidance and minimization of impacts during construction. Avoidance and minimization measures include limiting the timing of construction to Preble's inactive season (November through April) or use of visible barriers to limit the area of construction. • If culverts in Preble's habitat are replaced or upgraded, the new culverts could incorporate ledges and other measures, such as those described in Clevenger and Huijser(2009), to facilitate small mammal passage. • Where impacts arc unavoidable, compensatory mitigation will be provided through replacement with suitable Preble's habitat. Mitigation measures for Preble's could be combined with wetland mitigation. Wetland mitigation measures also may replace any impacts to suitable unoccupied Preble's habitat. • 20 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Other Federally Protected Species Bald Eagle • A raptor nest survey (to include bald eagles) will be conducted prior to construction to identify bald eagle nests near the project area. If an active bald eagle nest is found within 0.5 mile of the project area, the buffers and seasonal restrictions recommended by CDOW (no human encroachment within 0.5 mile of the nest from November 15 to July 31) will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. • No construction will occur within 0.25 mile of active nocturnal roosts between November 15 and March 15. If perch or roost trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height are removed during construction, they will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with cottonwood trees. • All overhead lighting at the intersection of I-25 and State Highway 392 near Fossil Creek Reservoir will incorporate the latest technology at the time of construction to control light leakage and direct lighting away from eagles roosting or nesting at the reservoir. • Mitigation for wetland impacts also will provide mitigation for impacts to riparian habitats used for foraging by bald eagles. • Wildlife Species of Concern Black-tailed Prairie Dog Prairie dog distribution in the project area is likely to change between the time field surveys were conducted and the time construction occurs; therefore, prairie dog colonies would likely need to be resurveyed prior to construction. In areas where avoidance of prairie dogs is not possible, CDOT will follow its guidelines for mitigating impacts. CDOT's prairie dog guidelines include: • CDOT projects will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts to prairie dog colonies greater than 2 acres. • If a colony is less than 2 acres, but has the potential to expand into areas that are currently inactive(i.e., not constrained), the available and accessible habitat will be the determining size of the area to be considered. • In order to foster a heightened sense of CDOT's ecological stewardship by the public, projects involving prairie dog towns of less than 2 acres will be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize impacts, which may include the relocation of prairie dogs, so long as doing so will not increase the impacts to other resources (e.g., wetlands, historical properties, environmental justice issues, and archeological sites) and is not cost prohibitive. • 21 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • • The area of prairie dog towns that will be affected by a project will be calculated before construction begins. • Relocation efforts for prairie dog towns greater than 2 acres shall be conducted in accordance with C.R.S. § 35-7-203, as well as any other applicable laws or regulations. • If a relocation site cannot be located for towns larger than 2 acres, the prairie dogs will be captured and donated to raptor rehabilitation facilities, or turned over to the Service for the black-footed ferret reintroduction program. • At no time will CDOT authorize earth-moving activities that result in burying live prairie dogs. If needed, humane techniques for killing prairie dogs within a town of less than 2 acres (recommended humane techniques) will be obtained from CDOW. • Coordination with the CDOW District Wildlife Manager responsible for the area the project is in will be initiated before any manipulation of prairie dogs or their colonies begins. Western Burrowing Owl • Burrowing owl surveys will be conducted prior to any work in prairie dog colonies between March 15 and October 31, when burrowing owls arc present in Colorado (CDOW 2007). If burrowing owls are present, prairie dog removal will • be scheduled to occur outside of this time period. • If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint during preconstruction surveys, nests will be left undisturbed and additional avoidance measures will be developed in coordination with CDOW. No human encroachment or disturbance will occur within 150 feet of a known nesting site until after November 1, or until it can be confirmed the owls have left the prairie dog town(CDOW 2007). • Direct impacts to burrowing owls will be avoided by covering or destroying prairie dog burrows prior to construction (prior to March 15) in order to prevent burrowing owls from nesting in the construction area. Prairie dogs will be humanely removed following CDOT's prairie dog policy prior to destruction of burrows. Great Blue Heron Direct impacts to nesting great blue herons will be avoided by conducting work outside the CDOW-recommended 500-meter(0.31-mile) buffer from nest sites (NDIS 2006). Impacts within this buffer will be limited during the great blue heron nesting season, which occurs from mid-March through July. • 22 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Common Gartersnake and Northern Leopard Frog • Mitigation measures for wetlands and Preble's, including wetland replacement and riparian enhancement, also will mitigate for impacts to the common gartersnake and northern leopard frog. • Replacement of culverts with larger culverts or free-spanning bridges also will mitigate for potential impacts to the common gartersnake and northern leopard frog. State Sensitive Fish The project will comply with Senate Bill (SB)40, which requires any agency of the State of Colorado to obtain wildlife certification from CDOW when the agency plans construction in any stream or its bank or tributaries. An application for SB 40 wildlife certification will be submitted to CDOW. CDOW will review the plans to ensure the project adequately protects fish and wildlife resources, and will provide recommendations if the proposed project will adversely affect a stream. To offset temporary impacts to aquatic species from habitat disturbance, aquatic • habitats will be restored after construction activities have ceased. The following design measures will be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to aquatic species, including native fish: To replace or restore some of the aquatic habitat function along the St. Vrain River, some simple habitat enhancement measures could be implemented. A drop structure and fishway constructed east of the I-25 Bridge on the St. Vrain River can accommodate fish of all sizes, but the lower pool below the fishway harbors nonnative predators such as largemouth bass and white crappie (Ficke and Myrick 2007). Elimination of the lower pool should remedy the problem without compromising the function of the structure (Ficke and Myrick 2007). Additionally, a large eddy on the northern side of the lower pool likely disorients fish as they enter the fishway. Disoriented fish can be delayed or prevented from gaining entrance to the structure. Extension and/or enlargement of existing boulder wing walls may reduce or eliminate the eddy (Ficke and Myrick 2007). Project wide Mitigation • Ripples and pools will be maintained and/or created. • Natural stream bottoms will be maintained where possible. • 23 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 ES-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • • Culverts will be partially buried, and the bottom will be covered with gravel/sand and have a low gradient. • Culverts will be replaced with one of equal or greater size. • Culverts will not have grates, impact dissipaters, or any other features that will impede fish movement. • To avoid erosion-induced siltation and sedimentation, sediment- and erosion- control BMPs will be implemented during each phase of construction. Seeding, in combination with mulch and mulch tackifier or blanket, will occur upon completion of all slope grading within the limits set forth in Section 208 of CDOT specifications. • Erosion-control blankets will be "wildlife friendly,"consisting of 100 percent biodegradable materials. • Access points to streams during construction will be limited to minimize degradation of the banks. • No new fish passage barriers will be created. • Existing drop structures that create a barrier to fish movements will be removed or redesigned where possible. An example is the drop structure east of the frontage road at I-25 and the St. Vrain River, which is planned to be modified to facilitate fish passage as part of this project. • Site-specific Mitigation for the St Vrain River • Eliminate the lower pool below the fishway. • Extend and/or enlarge existing boulder wing walls below the fishway to reduce or eliminate eddies. CDOT's water quality BMPs will be applied, and include the installation of mechanisms to collect, contain, and/or treat roadway runoff. Mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to wetlands and Preble's, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, also will improve fish habitat. Invertebrates The mitigation measures for state-sensitive fish species described above, including SB 40 certification and water quality BMPs, also benefit sensitive aquatic invertebrates such as the cylindrical papershell and plains snowfly. • 24 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Terrestrial Wildlife This section describes recommendations for reducing or mitigating proposed project impacts to wildlife, and presents possible mitigation opportunities. Whenever possible, mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to wildlife will be incorporated into the proposed project, including avoiding sensitive habitat, using retaining walls to avoid or minimize impacts, using BMPs to control erosion and drainage improvements, and promptly revegetating disturbed areas. The following overall mitigation measures apply to all project components. Big Game and Movement Corridors Impacts to big game will be minimized where feasible through construction of crossing structures that are designed to maintain wildlife movement corridors. In areas identified as important movement corridors, the following measures are recommended. These mitigation measures may not be feasible at all wildlife crossing areas due to cost or engineering issues. As described above in Table 10, most existing bridges across I-25 or • the commuter rail alignment in the project area are adequately sized to allow wildlife crossing under current conditions, and would continue to be adequately sized for wildlife under the Preferred Alternative. The existing wildlife passage under SH 119 at St. Vrain Creek is undersized for deer due to a low vertical clearance. A commuter rail bridge would be constructed adjacent to SH 119 under the Preferred Alternative. There are no current plans to improve the SH 119 crossing for wildlife,but if the SH 119 crossing is improved in the future, the commuter rail crossing should be designed to allow passage of deer and other wildlife. There are currently no barriers to wildlife movement at Little Dry Creek and the commuter rail alignment because there is no existing rail line in this area. When the commuter rail line is constructed at Little Dry Creek, it should be constructed to allow adequate passage for wildlife. The wildlife corridor near Ish Reservoir does not occur along a drainage, and construction of a bridge or culvert at this location will be more difficult than at other wildlife corridors. • 25 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO To maximize the use of movement corridors by wildlife, bridge spans and culverts should have the following features: • A minimum clearance of 13 feet and width of 23 feet for deer(Clevenger and Huijser 2009) will be used. Crossing structures sized for deer will be adequate for most common wildlife. The recommended minimum culvert diameter is 48 inches for medium-sized carnivores and 36 inches for small carnivores (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). • A minimum "openness ratio" of 0.75 will be used. The "openness ratio" is defined as the height of the structure multiplied by the structure width and divided by the structure length, measured in meters. A minimum openness ratio of 2.0 is recommended by some researchers (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). • Shrubs and vegetative cover will be placed at bridge underpass openings to attract wildlife and provide a"funnel effect." • Structures that periodically convey water, ledges, shelves, or other measures, such as those described in Clevenger and Huijser(2009), will be provided to facilitate passage alternatives during high water. • To avoid human disturbance to wildlife, trails will not be placed near wildlife crossing structures, if possible. • • Structures that include a substrate composition to accommodate wildlife movement(e.g., gravel or native soil). Other recommended design elements include: • Avoid the placement of lighting near the crossing structures (where lighting is required, lights should be directed downward and covered to minimize light spill-over). • Avoid attracting wildlife to the right-of-way by keeping roadside vegetation height to a minimum. • Mitigate for traffic noise. • Use wildlife-friendly fences as much as feasibly possible. Wildlife friendly fencing should follow the recommendations in Fencing with Wildlife in Mind, a CDOW publication(Hanophy 2009). Other Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians Many other wildlife species, such as small and medium-sized mammals, reptiles, and amphibians use the same migration corridors used by larger animals, and will benefit from the mitigation measures for wildlife movement corridors described above. Effects • 26 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO to other wildlife from impacts to grasslands will be mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures described for vegetation. Other sensitive wildlife habitat areas are generally located along major drainageways. Mitigation measures for impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and Preble's habitat also will benefit these areas. Birds Migratory Birds Requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) (MBTA) will be followed. CDOT has proposed special provisions creating a new Standards and Specification Section 240 - Protection of Migratory Birds to address the requirements of the MBTA. These provisions will ensure that consistent, appropriate and reasonable measures are taken to prevent injury to and death of migratory birds and the CDOT activities are compatible with current federal and state wildlife laws and regulations. Raptors • CDOW has developed recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for new surface occupancy within certain distances of nest sites of several raptor species (CDOW 2008). Surface occupancy is defined as human-occupied buildings and other structures such as oil and gas wells, roads, railroad tracks, and trails. The Service typically considers that implementation of the CDOW buffers and seasonal restrictions fulfill compliance requirements of the MBTA for raptors. A raptor nest survey will be conducted prior to project construction to identify raptor nests in the vicinity of the proposed project. If an active raptor nest is found on-site, CDOW-recommended buffers and seasonal restrictions (CDOW 2008) for raptors will be established during construction to avoid nest abandonment. If disturbance of raptor nests is unavoidable, mitigation measures could include the construction of artificial nests in suitable habitat or enhancement of prey habitat. Artificial nests will be constructed in the same general area as the impacts. If raptor nests will be impacted by the proposed project, specific mitigation measures for impacts to nesting raptors will be developed in coordination with CDOW and the Service prior to • construction. 27 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Aquatic Resources The mitigation measures for state-sensitive fish species described above, including SB 40 certification, design measures to benefit fish, and water quality BMPs, also will benefit other aquatic resources. Mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to wetlands and Preble's, including habitat replacement/enhancement and the replacement of existing culverts with larger culverts and/or free-spanning bridges, also will improve fish habitat. List of Preparers and Contacts Made Preparers Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation Project Description and Plans Provided By Felsburg, Holt& Ullevig References Breeding Bird Atlas Explorer(BBA Explorer) 2010. USGS North American BBA • Explorer. Available at: http://www.pwre.usgs.gov/bba/index.cfm?fa=explore.ProjectHome&BBA ID—CO198 7. Last accessed: November 1. Clevenger, T. and M. Huijser. 2009. Handbook for Design and Evaluation of Wildlife Crossing Structures in North America. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. 212 pp. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas II (COBBA II). 2010. Available at: http://bird.atlasing.org/Atlas/CO/. Last accessed: November 1. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2008. North 1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. October. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2009. Impacted Black-tailed Prairie Dog Policy. Memorandum. January 15. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2002. Unpublished black-tailed prairie dog mapping data. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2007. Recommended survey protocol and actions to protect nesting burrowing owls. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. Revised February. • 28 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2010. CNHP Tracked Bird Species. Available at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/list/birds.asp. Last updated: July 23. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2008. Wildlife Technical Report: North I-25 EIS, Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig. October. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2011. Final Biological Assessment; North I-25, Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Larimer, and Weld Counties, Colorado. December. Ficke, A.D. and C.A. Myrick. 2007. Fish Barriers and Small Plains Fishes: Fishway Design Recommendations and the Impact of Existing Instream Structures, Final Project Report prepared for Colorado Division of Wildlife. Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 36 pp Knopf, F.L and M.B. Wunder. 2006 Mountain Plover(Charadrius montanus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.comell.edu/bna/species/211 • Kuenning, R.R. and H.E. Kingery. 1998. Mountain Plover In Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. (H.E. Kingery, Ed.), Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2010. Wildlife Species Pages. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available at: http://ndis.nrcl.colostate.edu/. Accessed October 15, 2010. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2008. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory(RMBO). 2009. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2010. Unpublished Bald Eagle Watch Data. May 7. Ruediger, B. and M. DiGiorgio. 2007. Safe Passage: A user's guide to developing effective highway crossings for carnivores and other wildlife. Produced by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2003. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service). 2010. Revised Critical Habitat for Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse(Zap us hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. Federal Register; 75: 78429- 78483. December 15. • 29 WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORI ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • 30 LEGEND • Ale Study Corridors -- /\/ Highways ,-� wol ington /\/ Arterial Roadsdoi I 85 [Jri Regional Study Area \a � 1 • ,�' , / City Boundaries )1I �- Fierce y C Cities & Towns in Project Area I Fxtcaln '� / 1 ' , -F....--___... r Ault �, f Id i #71 I 1 .—.+,.ter [ rlmflath 411-3e-. Eaton verance , I i it 287 1• Lucem 1 392 I 1 1. Gree ey t r'34 ! ' - '�2f31 `" . N. Garden City IT\. 34 I Loveland r .. Evans I // / La Salle ; Campionn • I Sti • / r• O Milliken 85 �• L1. 6 _ -.1 Bertror.d GrIcrest ® • 0 I t..�ta d� / / 66 I Platteville F I y � l r I ' lone I I , i vollmar v tt. I -,, Firestone ' XI, A Fl Nitric.. I / �' v GINlbanel 1 c Fiii • / acon0 Fat two.1 O .( ,i o Vdmont _ I Erie I a Iii /76 7 JJattentxrg !--, -rejs BoulderI k CI Lafayette Nwt I `,� i �a • LoursHlle �� -- Brighton ! 7 .\ -�' E�7 . St:perio• I r • J . • r `,\• Broomfield 9 Eastlake Henderson 93 �'` ttcrth 36 , yenn // � '"-� fJ' 287 / 1 a Thornton ; -- ...- I / t ,.. . . hi / r - / `' �re b r '1 • _ Denve r / 70 `.._ Ill N ® ;� Figure 1 0 2 4 6 8 10A North 1-25 EIS i ( ' ' ' I Miles '•-----� Regional Study Area Map Document (N I-25 Map_Templale_12010e mxd) 1!10/2007--1 37 29 PM rf ' i ` ID i ti, �. /. i Fort Collins I ,. 28 1 • I • 68 a 5 ■ '1/4 t • > i li ss _ reeNFL 39 t ■ 1 the La Poudre River Greeley n -111,5- 111511- 111,5- 1 5 • ,1 34 Lgvelan• rte- ' Nisr 34 ,.t,_iti( 1--' 1;5Hir 34 + • 'qp • r poi ■ l ti • °sc • Eyans I -, 4s.„: -..- uth p ate R'Nler � So r II sQ ■ t ---. i— y Bertho d �"gf� 85 / `L 5:) 'O.V1.1 -' '� • -`' Li. .1 . / Platteville g6 ■ Longmont �,� cli\ t 0 .' i 4 ■% ■ ; 1 lip UI' tee I i` • r--• 4 4 111/21 11 < C,ce0-' -r Ft Lupton CO Boulder it i �' 28 m > l, 25 'Sr ■.. i i 7� r U` - --1- 1111-- 1t 36 Of a ee :S �� 0 i �.� 4 . .., G�04 1,4,-(;.>().;, �* 851 I t 11 5 1 IN.,J t 6T .r— ,---r r t l A Denver r ERQAlStudy Corridors • Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapped-Found Figure 2 Highways IN Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapped-Not Found North 1-25 EIS Preble's 0 ERO Resources Corp. /\/ Arterial Roads L Preble's MeadowJumping Mouse Block Clearance Meadow Jumping Mouse Data 1842 Clarkson Street c- €— Commuter Rail-Proposed Alignment Denver, CO 80218 II Transit Stations-Approximate Locations (303) 8 30- 1 18 8 o Regional Study Area 0 2.5 5 N Prepared for: I-25 North Fox: (303) 830-1199re Miles File:2455 Figure 3 PMJM.mxd (OS) City Boundaries Source: USFWS 1 Inch = 5 Miles Date: May 2010 LEGEND • , Study Corridors ELc Nest CDOT Segment • Wellington ' -�'' . 1 /\/ Highways :fit •N tg /\/ Arterial Roads ft<„g /AI ; . �• •\ Windsor - Nest LJ J Regional Study Area 4 ` Rene '~ City Boundaries • :, ` �ftns Cities & Towns in Project Area \ r14 Fossil Creek _ Autl 14 ' Reservoir -e `� 1 Bald Eagle Winter Range Communal --',' 267 gli /? f • • Roost • � re" 1 Bald Eagle Active Nest Sites Timnatn Al. • (0.5 Mile Buffer) � 265 . , Eaton t, • Bald Eagle Unknown Nest Sites 287 �.l (0.5-Mile Buffer) i 263 j��'- Lucerne 392 ' Bald Eagle Winter Forage ♦�f, • 261 z ��-''t es �� r Ott I/X1 Bald Eagle Winter Concentration • ,� • 25s `e :_..._._ -- • Bald Eagle Summer Forage ",4 . )0 2576 21111 Garden City }3 f 7ir Loveland• •. : �� i A {{ g_� r Bald Eagle Roost Sites �' " r' ��- 255 's. ! — • � Evans f 4 t v • „ w Bald Eagle Communal Roost 253 , rilfLa'Sale•' ;7 rr �` 1' ( Campion n `7- '.doe. •' J 4 251 60 i ten" - ' _ / Berthoud Nest ' a Mtlilk $� / ft/,•r St. Vrain/Boulder Creek act' er s 249 ! ?' i Communal Roost !' 3lcrast ' _cc 11111 4 1 A .- Mead , `• Plattevilk 66 i ‘7:41;� !I'f}er ` Delcammo/Boulder Creek Nest ;, iji•� - r : - fS 3 119 I• , r a, � . Longmont/St. Vrain Nest ' $ j. Vdlm"ar S 11.9 ,f .Fre cos I:. I / `4 jr4a I .'�r.�.ot O =rederlck4 , ' e t f I 0 i�d�li O C 3co,o Pcrt Lupt; • ' iii, i .P Gu.nbarret •6 r I % • 1,44_10.• r;:.ti. Erie (, Boulder Creek Communal Roost • •`.'. ' Boulder ~ ! - I O _ _ Q Lafayette taw! Fsii. i 7 • • - L•'ouisvilk�f 4 r 1 ••<\.._,,-----a). � Superior., • a v. 'or . ji! i t Eastlake Br held ter'• -. Outzeiv a O D Herxferso ` n I 93 ' -'\, . licnhgllenn / r \i'. 36 287 Thornton Nest . 0 Thornton • . ;F:, 1—. Ilit # 1rte/ 1 3\r.iyes..0. • I _►_ -- Denve1� /• ii.. 7O I N e W III Figure 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 A �� --t ��_�� North I-25 EIS Bald)..._sirt.t ii \1 I I t. I Miles , •`----`- a Eagle NDIS Data I. �\ Source: CDOW (NDIS 2009, ERO 2010) LEGEND ~ Study Corridors City Boundaries • CDOT Segment Non-Bald Eagle Raptor Nests (Source: ERO 2006, 2010) ° Milepost Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) /\/ Highways Prairie Dogs (Source: ERO 2006) 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2009) /\/ Arterial Roads %�/2 Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2009, ERO 2010) Regional Study Area - i' — � ' Wellington ` ® o► /' 7 „ N / i ;'i -./ al i,I / �� / '\ / c Tla / \ / O , c Pierce \ / iv• f M • + 85 i Fort Collins • jor 0 0 \, ,.,• • • Ault \ I l YG° 267 j a 266 257 1 • �1 I • il le, Leo 265f' Timnath-- i i - �© Eaton I Severance I • 264 85 I • 263 . - is oWindsor 392 I • Lucerne I , • {2871 j261 ` • o i j i �°�„ 260 I.ISO 1 it j259 -----___---410---_,,,,,,i Greeley �Ila el- b. i I • i 258alt ! i 257 N • Garden City i Loveland . 256 os • * _ ® i ip IL ,i • j 402 °x255 , Evans j 3254 Matchline Figure 5 41 85 j ® 253 glir La Salle O /T� A f Johnstown / N o " 252 Figure 4 III 0 1 2 3 4 5 I North 1-25 EIS Wildlife ` ' ' Miles A A1 251 ° Milliken Habitat - Northern Region _ a A 250 - i 1 it .a Lucerne LEGEND 0 ~ Study Corridors City Boundaries CDOT SegmentCI Non-Bald Eagle Raptor Nests (Source: ERO 2006, 2010) en Greeley i Milepost Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) 4`' t../ Highways Prairie Dogs (Source: ERO 2006) r O Cities & Towns in Project Area Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2009) Garden City° Arterial Roads rf l Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2009, ERO 2010) L. Regional Study Area Evans t I2531254La Salle O85 60 Campion Johnstown° 42871252 60 / 1. 251 ° Milliken I = �.• :AV / p 250 / "Berthoud • 249 i Gilcrest • 1 o Mead / 85 j j III 66 Platteville I ; Longmont I i o / 9 • t/ s I Vollmar o !I / • o „� 1 a . es Firestone i j i Q a 3 Q I I le ••/ Niwot • Frederick I 'Os. - . • o • o © a•• Dacono Fort Lupton a Gunbarrel • • • a r Erie: 0 • Valmont • co ! ° a me Wattenbergma j r 0' • Illt i_ ar Lafa ette •�. • I Matchline Figure 6 j y • LL i 42 Louisville •• Bri hton i >�' kr .. III N di u • Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 ! ile 16 orth 125 EIS Wildlife ' III I Miles • i Habitat - Central Region • } -�� s, ` s= 1 Eastlake a an lanq LEGEND I 0 ti ^V Study Corridors t City Boundaries , I0 /V CDOT Segment • Non-Bald Eagle Raptor Nests (Source: ERO 2006, 2010) • I • Milepost Prairie Dogs (Source: NDIS 2006) t I "/ Highways ,, , -" ` Prairie Dogs (Source: ERO 2006) ' I 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area Swift Fox Overall Range (Source: NDIS 2009) 1 v /N/ Arterial Roads rA Great Blue Heron Nesting Areas (Source: NDIS 2009, ERO 2010) ipton 1 �.r J Regional Study Area I - I j. fI • Valmont a `"� -- Erie' • • i o / , ♦ • • I i°--� ` • , •4ii. • ®rtWallenberg i Boulder • . . _ . . , . . . . ' atch ' Figuf'!r 5 '.! .�. : . .EIL36 . r S . • Lafayette 1 i ,, l I ��, ��_ r 42 Louisville •_ •4 - `, Brighton i •�,, 4 • • • • I * . ir, IIIIP Ji. if `-‘, a • ill es - I on Superiorakere • r ! f isti 51 ... • / • • N. a IS • +. a Eastlake A __ 4 -.-h-/ .r--� - Broomfield , � •• " Henderson 128 �•\., & t 128 gip \. pi • • • • • • N 7/ -- %- • N r Northglenn . / ram' i44r _ - / - . I • , --- �, Thornton a ,! • . 2 / , a r � go / � S • V. . 2'"_.-- 24 a \ - ,, /smirk 2 �/ / \ \ / ' 265 / f:// / i Denver / 5 : 58 C ; /� a - s5 l ► i Cr 40 _ lel ' ` / ` /: 3 1E .. _ • ♦ 2 , L J 26 , \ \\%..,_._...\ \\\\)9)•N Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 5A 1 North 1-25 EIS Wildlife ' ' ' ' ' Miles f s$ Habitat - Southern Region 0. . = _ ‘ I LEGEND 0 ^/ Study Corridors Road Kill Data *'s/ Highways Coyote O Cities & Towns in Project Area - Deer Arterial Roads Elk Lit Regional Study Area • Fox City Boundaries • Raccoon --'r Wildlife Crossing Area (Source: ERO 2006) Unknown / `♦ Wellington .' �- f- -/..\, /11/ / \.. %-. i , Pierce ;' i I Fort Collins 85 N i - - - - - -1=14 \'� III 17 Ault \i II i '\1 I } Ila F \ _44 i Timnath " Eaton Severance • I \ I i _ 85 \it It'll °Windsor • Lucerne \ I _ 287 I i�� \ ` � L i 1 c 11! SI )7 tcr‘"-1- 1e'rrl''' . ‘ 'I ! , Greeley 34 1 I 1 -----. Garden Cityv Loveland ' - i 402 t Matchline Figure 8 rI Evans , . . . �r . La Salle 85 Ia / /; Johnstown � r r i N o - _ 4 Figure 7 so North I-25 EIS Wildlife 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ' ' ' ' ' Miles I O Milliken Crossings and Wildlife Road Kill ice► Data - Northern Region I -= ov vii iuoui 1392 - 1 LEGEND I Lucerne AV Study Corridors Road Kill Data • "/ Highways Coyote 0 Cities & Towns in Project Area * Deer Greeley Arterial Roads n, Elk 43a jn __ Regional Study Area • Fox J • Raccoon - Garden City t -1 City Boundaries I7--► Wildlife Crossing Area (Source: ERO 2006) Unknown Evans i 1 Matchline Figure 7 . - __ La Salle O85 I 60 Campion Johnstown ' a ,` 8 I so ` .' j v Milliken 256 /frr Berthoud I Gilcrest/ i i / / 0 I ,,.. Mead / III j 85 Platteville . _._ . — ss _ I I ' I Longmont j O ; ° NE a. _119_ I . Vollmar 4 I sr I O it ./ Firestone , ° 1 Ic ', Niwot 3 0 Frederick Il i aDacono Fort Lupton Gunbarrel 0 Erie i Valmont i j v� Wattenberg i I j o ` j Matchline Figure 9 aLafayette ( ma j Brightc^ ° NI Figure 8II 0 1 2 3 4 5 North 1-25 EIS Wildlife ' ' ' ' ' MilesI s Crossings and Wildlife Road Kill Data - Central Region itie l ; LEGEND Vollmar © i • ~ Study Corridors Road Kill Data ' ",/ Highways Coyote ° i Firestone , ° Cities & Towns in Project Area Deer 1 Arterial Roads Elk I ° Frederick I .-a-1 Fox I, L--J Regional Study Area + Raccoon 0 Dacono Fort Lupton City Boundaries4 4—� Wildlife Crossing Area (Source: ERO 2006) Unknown I Erie i ° Valmont i i ° i io - —�; pip Wattenberg i i Boulder _ _ • u - . re . .-P . eec . eell . It.I . ! F . cie . . . . . r cr . . ne . i ' i © Matchline Figure 8 i (36J ) Lafayette 7 \ _ (_ J 7 I 4-42 Louisville Brighton ° .. / ... ,� o Superior 9 85''Y' ! Eastlake Broomfield I O Henderson-0 =-- 1. t2s •� 111:, te4Northglenn i • 93 44 / jl , -4-- Thornton 2 / / • 5—... _ / . i I .� ; / '` - d f/ 1 Denver / 35 • 111 95 1 / ,1 ---- 40 c f 4-4151 i ii k / ► 2 r-`- 3 391 •*-- ="" rr\neStt , ..tet \ \ --1---7 ' NN. \ g ...L. III N Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 North I-25 EIS Wildlife ' ' ' ' ' Miles •-- , Crossings and Wildlife Road Kill 1 _ Data - Southern Region WILDLIFE TECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM NORTH 1-25 EIS-AUGUST 2011 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • NORTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Biological Assessment • 0 Consultants in natural resources and the environment Denver • Boise • Durango • Western Slope FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS, BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, LARIMER, AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO Prepared for— U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Region 6 PO Box 25486, DFC (MS65412) Denver, Colorado 80225 On behalf of— Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 and Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, Colorado 80111 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street E Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830- 1188 ERO Resources Corp. July 2011 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, CO 80218 ( 303 ) 830 - 1188 Fax: (303) 830- 1199 www.e ro resources.com ero@eroresourcescom ERO Resources Corporation • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 2 2. Federal Action 4 3. Consultation History 4 4. Project Description 4 4.1. Regional Study Area 5 4.2. Project Area 5 5. Environmental Baseline 6 5.1. Description of Action Area 6 5.2. Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Potentially Affected by the Preferred Alternative 8 5.2.1. Colorado Butterfly Plant(CBP) 10 5.2.2 Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid (ULTO) 16 5.2.3. Black-footed Ferret 20 5.2.4. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Preble's) 20 5.2.5 Platte River Species 31 6. Preconstruction Surveys and Conservation Measures 32 6.1. Colorado Butterfly Plant 32 • 6.2. Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid 33 6.3. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 33 7. Process for Future Section 7 Consultation 35 7.1. Project-Specific Consultation 35 7.2. Project-Specific Biological Assessment 37 7.3 Monitoring and Success Criteria 37 7.4 Project Reporting 38 8. Conclusions 38 9. List of Preparers and Contacts Made 39 10. References 39 TABLES Table 1. Federally listed threatened and endangered species potentially occurring in the regional study area. 9 Table 2. Federally listed species with potential to be affected by depletions to the Platte River system 9 Table 3. Waters evaluated for suitable CBP and ULTO habitat 12 Table 4. Summary of Preble's trapping records for the regional study area. 23 Table 5. Permanent impacts to Preble's habitat from construction of the Preferred Alternative 29 • ER0 Resources Corporation Table 6. Impacts tracking for Preble's habitat from construction of the Preferred • Alternative 36 Table 7. Preliminary effects determination for federally listed threatened and endangered species. 39 FIGURES Figure 1. North 1-25 FEIS Regional Study Area Figure 2. North 1-25 FEIS Typical Sections Figure 3. North I-25 FEIS Ute Ladies'-Tresses and Colorado Butterfly Plant Habitat Assessment Figure 4. North 1-25 FEIS Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Data • • ii ERa Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER, LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO JULY 2011 Executive Summary The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is preparing a Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)to analyze solutions to improve mobility, provide multimodal opportunities, and address aging infrastructure in an area known as the North Interstate 25 (1-25) FEIS regional study area(regional study area). In support of the North 1-25 FEIS, this Programmatic Biological Assessment(PBA) has been prepared to address effects of the Preferred Alternative to federally listed species (listed species) in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(c)). After submittal of the PBA, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)will issue a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO)that will be used by CDOT as a guidance document for avoidance/minimization of adverse effects of project actions on federally listed species. The PBA presents how the Preferred Alternative as a whole would affect federally listed species, the biological consequences of these impacts, and the cumulative effects. Because the proposed timeframe for the Preferred Alternative is unknown at this time and may occur in numerous phases over many years, the actual effects and the listed species affected could change over time. The PBA provides a process for project-specific consultation with the Service on a construction project-by-project basis. Consultation with the Service will occur at least twice during the design and construction of each distinct construction project. During design of each distinct construction project, CDOT will reevaluate and update the project-specific Environmental Baseline, and consult with the Service to determine if the baseline conditions have changed to such an extent that the effects determination in the PBA needs to be revisited. The consultation will include the updated baseline for the construction project being designed, reporting on impacts related to the construction • MO 1 Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • project, and updating anticipated cumulative impacts of all construction projects related to the Preferred Alternative. In addition, because of the potential time lapse between final design and initiation of construction,the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and/or CDOT will consult with the Service prior to each construction project to implement revised habitat assessments and/or clearance surveys according to Service guidelines and protocols in effect at the time of construction. If new species are listed or habitat conditions and/or species distribution of currently listed species is found to have changed, then FHWA/CDOT will consult with the Service to ensure ESA compliance at the time of construction. 1. Introduction CDOT is preparing a FEIS to analyze solutions to improve mobility, provide multimodal opportunities, and address aging infrastructure in the North 1-25 FEIS regional study area. In support of the North I-25 FEIS, this PBA has been prepared to address effects to federally listed species in compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. The Preferred Alternative includes improvements on multiple corridors, as shown in Figure 1 • and summarized in more detail in Section 4—Project Description. Generally, the Preferred Alternative would improve 1-25 by adding additional general purpose and tolled express lanes(lanes restricted to high occupant vehicles and tolled single occupant vehicles), improving or relocating frontage roads and carpool lots, and upgrading 17 interchanges along the I-25 corridor. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative would provide express bus service from northern Colorado communities to Denver, provide U.S. Highway 85 (U.S. 85) commuter bus service, and provide commuter rail from Fort Collins to Denver. The 1-25 improvements include widening I-25 with general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes, and reconstructing or upgrading substandard interchanges to accommodate future travel needs. The construction start date is unknown at this time, but most work is projected to begin after 2030; however, some work could start as early as 2015. The Preferred Alternative includes areas covered under the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative (SGPI). In January 2004, CDOT, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife(CDOW), FHWA, Service, and public and private partners agreed ERO 2 Resources Corporal= FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO on a"Shortgrass Prairie Initiative"as an alternative way to address species impacts in the eastern third of the state. The SGPI provides programmatic clearance for CDOT activities on the existing road network in the eastern third of Colorado for 20 years after 2004 (through 2024). It is expected that the SGPI will be extended if mitigation credit is still available after 20 years(Peterson, pers. comm. 2009; Michael, pers. comm. 2009). After five years, only 5.5 percent of available mitigation credits have been used (Peterson, pers. comm.2009). Covered transportation projects include: 1) repairs for all existing bridges; 2) approximately 4,310 miles of resurfacing/overlays and accompanying shoulder improvements; 3) maintenance along existing transportation corridors; and 4) safety, reconstruction, capacity, and other transportation improvements (Service 2004a; Venner 2001). The SGPI covers three federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species [piping plover(Charadrius melodus), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), and Colorado butterfly plant(CBP) (Gaura neomexicana coloradensis)];three candidate species [lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus), black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), and Arkansas darter(Etheostoma Cragini)]; and 29 species of • concern. Species explicitly not covered in the SGPI Biological Opinion (BO) (Service 2004a) include black-footed ferret(Mustela nigripes), Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Preble's) (Zapus hudsonius preblei), and Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (ULTO) (Spiranthes diluvialis). Some of the components of the Preferred Alternative are covered by the SGPI,while other components (e.g., commuter rail) are not. The SGPI BO was amended in February 2008 to address the change in status for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Service 2008). Included in this PBA is a description of the Preferred Alternative, a description of the existing conditions in the regional study area, an analysis of potential impacts from the Preferred Alternative on federally listed species, a description of proposed conservation measures, and the general process for future consultation with the Service as the Preferred Alternative moves forward. Because of their potential presence in the area, the effects analysis is focused on the federally threatened Preble's, ULTO, and CBP and their suitable habitat. Effects to the mountain plover(Charadrius montanus) was originally evaluated in the Draft PBA, but the proposed listing as a threatened species was • ERO 3 Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • withdrawn on May 12, 2011 and will not be further evaluated in this document. Because of the extended construction timeframe of the Preferred Alternative and the dynamic nature of the ESA, species listings, and populations and habitat of protected species, many of the species and habitats addressed in this PBA will be reassessed during subsequent consultation with the Service prior to construction as described in Section 7 of this document. 2. Federal Action The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the Service on actions that have the potential to affect federally listed species or their designated critical habitat. Because the FHWA is the lead federal agency for the North 1-25 FEIS, Section 7 ESA consultation with the Service is required. 3. Consultation History On July 7, 2005, CDOT sent a letter to the Service requesting a list of federally listed species potentially occurring in the regional study area. On July 14, 2005, the Service responded in a letter with a list of species potentially occurring in the regional study area (Service 2005). ERO revised the list of species potentially occurring based on the March 2010 list updated by the Service (Service 2010a). An agency scoping meeting was held on June 19, 2006 and was attended by Alison Michael of the Service. Preliminary scoping and resource agency meetings also were held with Alison Michael on February 26, 2004; February 2, 2005; May 11 2005; and May 2,2006. 4. Project Description The Preferred Alternative consists of highway and transit improvements in the area from Fort Collins south to Denver. The Preferred Alternative includes the following elements: • I-25 Highway Improvements: One new general purpose lane in each direction of I-25 between State Highway (SH) 66 and SH 14; one buffer-separated tolled express lane in each direction of 1-25 from the existing high occupancy vehicle/toll lanes at 84th Avenue to SH 14; rebuilding or relocating frontage roads; construction of carpool lots; and upgrades to 17 interchanges along the 1-25 corridor. • 4 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • I-25 Express Bus: Express bus service with 13 stations along 1-25, U.S. Highway 34 (U.S. 34), and Harmony Road with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown Denver, and from Fort Collins to Denver International Airport(DIA). At some locations, the express bus station would be shared with carpool lots. • Commuter Rail: Commuter rail service from Fort Collins to the anticipated FasTracks North Metro end of line. Service to Denver would connect Fort Collins to Longmont and Thornton and include nine stations at numerous northern Colorado communities. The commuter rail would largely be a single track using the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF) Railroad generally paralleling U.S. 287 with passing tracks at four locations. Passengers also may connect to the FasTracks northwest rail in Longmont, which will travel to Boulder. • U.S. 85 Commuter Bus: Commuter bus service with eight stations along U.S. 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver. Queue jumps, allowing buses to bypass queued traffic at some signalized intersections would be included. Queue jumps are bus-only lanes that typically require modifying an intersection to provide a short lane for the bus between the right-turn lane and through lanes. • Other Preferred Alternative Features: The Preferred Alternative would include retaining walls, water quality ponds, and drainage structures. Retaining walls are used to minimize impacts to sensitive areas, and drainage structures and water • quality ponds are used to comply with water quality standards. The impacts from the construction and operation of these features are evaluated in this PBA. 4.1. Regional Study Area The regional study area is bounded generally by U.S. 287 on the west, U.S. 85 on the east, Wellington on the north, and Denver on the south (Figure 1). The regional study area is primarily in Adams, Boulder, Larimer, and Weld counties; and includes small sections in Broomfield and Denver counties. The regional study area includes all areas that were addressed during the initial alternatives screening and FEIS. 4.2. Project Area The project area is defined as the footprint of the Preferred Alternative, including highway and transit improvements summarized above. The width of the construction footprint, including existing highway right-of-way (ROW), along I-25 ranges from 230 feet at the Cache la Poudre River to about 90 feet at the St. Vrain River. This area includes both permanent disturbance such as areas that will be paved, and areas along both sides that will be disturbed temporarily during construction then restored. The width • of the construction footprint along the BNSF alignment from Fort Collins to Longmont is ERO 5 Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • about 30 feet along sections where a single track will be constructed, 70 feet where a double track will be constructed, and about 100 feet at the Sugarmill Road site where several tracks will be constructed (Figure 2, examples a, b, and c, and d). In many cases, construction impacts will be limited; often passenger rail will be added to the existing freight rail track. From Longmont to the North Metro area, new rail construction will require grading and construction of retaining walls to minimize disturbance to sensitive resources (Figure 2, example d). The width of the construction footprint along this portion of the alignment ranges from 35 to 150 feet. The width of the construction footprint at the St. Vrain River at SH 119, where two tracks would be constructed, would be about 90 feet. 5. Environmental Baseline This section describes the general ecological setting of the regional study area, including general vegetation and wildlife communities and descriptions of federally listed species,their habitats, and ranges within the regional study area. The Environmental Baseline also presents how the Preferred Alternative would affect federally listed • threatened and endangered species, the biological consequences of these impacts, and cumulative effects. 5.1. Description of Action Area The Action Area is defined under the ESA as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. The Action Area for this PBA is the same as the regional study area defined in the North 1-25 FEIS and the term regional study area will be used for Action Area in this document for consistency with the FEIS. Vegetation and wildlife communities in the regional study area and project area are described in detail in the vegetation section of the North I-25 FEIS, and are summarized below. 5.1.1. Vegetation The regional study area consists primarily of agricultural land (irrigated and nonirrigated), urban areas, and developed areas, and is dominated by nonnative plants. Roadside vegetation is dominated by species typical of disturbed sites, such as kochia • 6 MO Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO (Bassia scoparia), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Vegetation in residential and commercial development consists of bluegrass lawns, ornamental trees, and shrubs. Narrow bands of riparian vegetation are present along streams and irrigation canals. Common trees in riparian areas include plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Wetland species typically include sandbar willow (Salix exigua), cattail (Typha sp.), reed canarygrass (Phalaroides arundinacea), sedges(Carex sp.), rushes (Juncus sp.), redtop (Agrostis stolonifera), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Along I-25 the Preferred Alternative would mostly affect land within the CDOT ROW. The median would be used where widening is needed in the southern one-third of the project area, between SH 7 and SH 66. Land within the CDOT ROW and median consists mostly of mowed grasslands with riparian trees and shrubs along major drainages. Outside of the CDOT ROW,the surrounding land is mostly privately owned irrigated cropland, nonirrigated cropland, and commercial development. The bus transit • stations and carpool lots primarily would be on agricultural or vacant lands. The commuter rail line primarily would affect land within the BNSF Railroad ROW between Fort Collins and Longmont, or within the abandoned Union Pacific Railroad (UP) ROW from about Weld County Road (WCR) 10 to the connection with the proposed North Metro Corridor. Between Longmont and WCR 10, the commuter rail line would follow SH 119 east, and would then turn south to follow WCR 7. Land within the BNSF and UP ROWs consists mostly of unmowed grasslands dominated by smooth brome (Bromopsis inermis) with riparian trees and shrubs at crossings of major rivers and streams. Land use surrounding the commuter rail alignment is mostly agricultural, with residential development in Fort Collins, Longmont, and other communities along the alignment. Land along SH 119 consists of a mixture of publicly owned open space and private land that is mostly developed. The rail transit stations would be primarily on agricultural or vacant lands covered by kochia, smooth brome, and other invasive species. Major drainages crossing the project area run in an easterly direction and include, from north to south, the Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Little • Thompson River, St. Vrain River, Little Dry Creek, Big Dry Creek, and the South Platte FRO 7 Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • River. Vegetation along these drainages is typically dominated by cattail, sandbar willow, reed canarygrass, plains cottonwood, Russian olive, and Siberian elm. 5.1.2. General Wildlife The regional study area is along the base of the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains in the Great Plains ecosystem. Wildlife habitat in the regional study area is fragmented by urban development, cultivated fields, and numerous roads and highways. Protected open space or otherwise undeveloped land, which preserves several habitat types as well as movement corridors between different habitat areas, is scattered throughout the regional study area. Big game species such as mule deer(Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), and white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus) are found in the regional study area. Carnivores common in the regional study area include coyote (Canis Iowans), raccoon(Procyon lotor), red fox(Vulpes vulpes), and striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis). A variety of small mammals and birds are found in association with the various habitat types in the regional study area. Wildlife species present in the regional study area are described in greater detail in the North 1-25 Wildlife • Technical Report(ERO 2008) and Wildlife Technical Report Addendum (ERO 2011). 5.2. Federally Threatened,Endangered,and Candidate Species Potentially Affected by the Preferred Alternative Several federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially occur in the regional study area (Table 1). Federally threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Potential effects to a federally listed species or its habitat resulting from a project with a federal action require consultation with the Service under Section 7 of the ESA. No regulations require consultations for effects to candidate species; however, FHWA policy requires that they be treated as listed species. Additionally, if any candidate species were to become listed during final design or prior to construction, consultation with the Service would be required. Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species that potentially occur in the regional study area are presented in Table 1. The federally threatened Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), Canada lynx(Lynx canadensis), and greenback • 8 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) also occur in at least one county covered by the regional study area(Service 2010a), but no habitat for these species is present in the regional study area. The endangered North Park phacelia(Phacelia formosula) potentially occurs in western Larimer County, but is outside of the regional study area. The bald eagle also potentially occurs in the regional study area, but was removed from the federal list of T&E species in 2007. Table 1. Federally listed threatened and endangered species potentially occurring in the regional study area. Common Name Scientific Name Status Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana coloradensis Threatened Ute ladies'-tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Black-footed ferret* Mustela nigripes Endangered Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Proposal to list withdrawn May 12,2011 *The black-footed ferret is assumed by the Service to be absent from the regional study area,which lies within a block clearance area where black-footed ferret surveys are not required. Source: Service 2010a. • Table 2 lists species that could potentially be affected by continued or ongoing water depletions to the Platte River system. Species on this list could be adversely affected downstream of the regional study area by water depletions associated with a variety of project elements including detention ponds and dust-abatement activities. Table 2. Federally listed species with potential to be affected by depletions to the Platte River system. _ Likelihood of Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence in the Federal Status Regional Study Area Whooping crane Grus Americana Low Endangered Least tern Sternula antillarum Low Endangered Piping plover Charadrius me/odes Low Threatened Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Low Endangered Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara Low Threatened Source: Service 2010a. The following Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.5 provide a description of habitat • requirements for the species listed in Tables 1 and 2, an assessment of the potential for ERO 9 Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • habitat in the regional study area to support the species, and a description of possible effects associated with the Preferred Alternative. £2.1. Colorado Butterfly Plant(CBP) 5.2.1.1. Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The CBP is listed as a threatened species under the ESA (65 Fed. Reg. 62302 (October 18, 2000)). The CBP is a perennial evening primrose, approximately 20 to 32 inches tall with reddish pubescent stems and a narrow, elongated inflorescence of white flowers that turn pink or reddish with age. Widely scattered populations of CBP are present in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. CBP occurs in the transition zone between wetlands and upland prairie in subirrigated, alluvial soils of low gradient stream valleys at elevations from 5,000 to 6,000 feet(CNPS 1989). Colonies are often found in low depressions or along bends in wide, active floodplains along meandering perennial stream channels a short distance upslope of the actual channel. Commonly associated species include redtop, scratchgrass muhly (Muhlenbergia asperifolia), bluegrass (P. sp., P. compressa), threesquare bulrush (Schoenoplectus pungens), arctic rush (Juncus arcticus), sedges, showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), Flodman's thistle (Cirsium flodmanii), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), and smooth horsetail (Hippochaete laevigata). Sandbar willow is immediately adjacent to some populations. Typical CBP habitat is relatively open without dense or overgrown vegetation (65 Fed. Reg. 62302 (October 18, 2000)). 5.2.1.2. Suitable Habitat In Colorado, CBP is known to occur in Adams, Boulder, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties (Spackman et al. 1997; Michael, pers. comm. 2011). Known populations of CBP occur on the western edge of the regional study area on Walnut Creek in Westminster and north of the regional study area on land owned by the City of Fort Collins north of Fort Collins near the Wyoming border. The Service has designated critical habitat for CBP, but no critical habitat occurs within the regional study area (Service 20046). No known CBP populations occur within the project area. A new population of CBP was discovered on Clear Creek near 1-25 in 2011. Clear Creek, including the 100-year floodplain, would not be disturbed by any construction related to • 10 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO the Preferred Alternative. The Service has not established official survey guidelines for the CBP; however, wetlands associated with an intermittent or perennial stream with an active floodplain are considered suitable habitat. Habitat evaluations for CBP were conducted at major stream drainages of the regional study area. Presence/absence surveys for CBP were not conducted as part of this PBA because the proposed construction date is more than 10 years away. Habitat evaluations found that no suitable habitat for CBP was present at or near the following locations (Table 3): • BNSF alignment and Sugarmill Road, • Unnamed ditch at SH 66 and North 115th Street, • Oligarchy Ditch at SH 119, • Ish Ditch at the BNSF alignment, • Oligarchy Ditch at the BNSF alignment, and • BNSF alignment near Divide Reservoir. These locations lack suitable habitat and are not associated with the floodplain of an • intermittent or perennial drainage. As a result, no further presence/absence surveys would be needed unless new suitable habitat or new CBP populations are identified nearby. Suitable habitat for CBP was identified within riparian areas along the St. Vrain, Little Thompson, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers where these drainages are crossed by 1-25 or the proposed commuter rail alignment(Figure 3). These sites are within the 100-year floodplain of tributaries to the South Platte River and are described in greater detail in Table 3. • ERO 11 Resources Corporation C O N „ C a U I. ., a a o a e O ° ^' A a .° '52O � `vm a. .�a .2 ° `va ro .° ��o ed r T W U E- 3 .J T MI F F c a T 0] A V• i. 'O 'N N U y`a-� -� O N j o y 2 O y �j U O C • afi is 0 ra ;° c r° `v « .m, .°. w a 5 `v « Fa ` v `v As u '0 se 0 0y oo t .0yaoo . ..0•03„ ,40 9 a) o v a t •0 0 o a.) s ❑ 0 .= m o o o m w mZa nT" v .o aZa RT�' 0 .2 .oZ nT' v .E . 'O Z ,9' 2 Z -o ..c ° Z LP', 2 Z . s 3 Z a' ° Z c ° m v 3 a 4?.. o C ? 3 9 N -O .o — S R r Q 0 i U ` 0 y 3 A O O 'OY R O y .0 c., Y d y 0 t.o �j^ 9 o .5. Q 2 ?S T C 0 u _ ° CC t O 9CC T C L L T U a 0 'C N a J o t—a az '- e0 D C C o C 0.. 'o -- O L 9 0 t y v a C y v t q '� U Q 3 00 N V S -o a 0 0 s 0 ._' m „vi TO 0 'E y o 3 E .a ,- a 3 3 .S R o F C b ` O ° .0 a1 aU g Q N U ° w 'o C L' • U .C N 0 x U S; C� 9 .8 y 9 u "a U o cz L O 9 C w O O aJ e0 O y 0 0 N .a C tot' • C `cd C �-. y fa ❑ y Y to C N to y L>` r0 0 R U N N z cg b Y ^ oo 'a 00 > as ea z e0 m a— a) m Z U TO,' ° a t eo>n t o ca U t t `m d i n w o cn V, -C N N ria 41 OD VD N.n Q N O ` C C C 0 V' C Vl [n —x ° e fi o 0 3 a 3 O 3 3 0 < = ._1 r .° o c. pr, 3au rn o.C. -O o` 8 cr. E rg • za oaua a o o c c>: v co o a o -. O zca Q .a o P Ha F-, F-1 rn H•, FFJ oH • O0 0. L V W M W rn b r co M M a\ O Ja ? to .o O O co h O in r b 0 — 0 b W O O Z N N co O N O N O F• 0- o a , � o 0' o a � a � vs CE a o o "O O -o 9 'a -o 9 'O 0] S U m m mo m m CO FIA qV o0 00 0. n Sn Q °., 0 co 0 0 co 0 N 3 s. T+ '� 0 0 0 o N co 0 fi M N 4. . en VD r4. 0. Z .. N '. 0in N Cen 0 M 0 0 m to. Ti 0) C v 21 7 C C 0' 0 3 R b 00 C CO O L µ, X 2 .m Z '- rn R V] 9 V1 V] F CO N O I. ,Z O A v F F V) y 3 s _ m al of co o g 0 • to -a >0 ,2 •0T C u m ,n co W 01t n0 eu IJ `a et 3 � Co 0 = oro 3E c .°1. o c C ,C C C t C C c d d T o o c o d',O O w aj 0 O w ' y" O O w ' O t `^ o V UTd 0 0 ° U Td O O U U A 0 0 ❑ .� V 0 W Y�. • A y ` y> UO .C Vi R3 0 ` Y W>tA yJ� � .C V] y ` 4>� � ,C V� y0 y a '�' t d s d J o L 0 9 O V O ` O t ° O ` O '0 " G - •0 ,� C w Y vii ,Q w Y e�ii ,Q C°O- O w Y vii ,� °O O 0 C _ ` G C a o a d o a d o a ° o ° O ._ t c d O ."al N m W -45 O ." N m N O .“ N m c aid .] •- 0. sCo ctte cc, U T-0 0 ._ • r 0.D U T._ •a r arm U >- ) d 7 U 3 O t O cc O cc O — , c > 0 0 .= 7 : 3 3 v Et O n 3 3 v O 1 E n 3 3 .1i O � v o o s o d o 5 d 05 d . o .] t ca.0 > as .7 t a.0 > as .A t a'O > as 3 t o o • o y E 0 0 E vc w c eu a ° r t 9 ° ' d O w t d dines j '� t9 UE '� '0y oIC 7 a °° 3 ° a R °• d' 3t ° ym y 0 a v o w c 0 t a °�' d v N s' v o Q 0 U O �u 0 , o W o 0 y r c i t 0 vs c y 40 01 P d R o 0z al 0) cis ° E E c *Cu '°° O5 (..°C 0 id o o c c 9 _m c ayi y U CY O R cocci ° ° O .� O O U O ,W 00 C t O i. tC 9 rs b 6'OGG I. c t ni _a ... 4O al LLl " d .p Et- S Y a o q W R ° W i y N y r w q m > o cn y z o 3 0 .� > c, 3 c �,.., a 0 mu n z va z at,hJ K 00 PzLi) M N FF N o in G b C co g V1 S co c • Q N 7a G �. O cc ° A t a 'Z .¢.7 a n'szl F apW. 3 sc' rn c a '� x o a v a ° a m en pow e Z a vi a Z o c N moo, jr' ON CO o Is E- H a o z w -, d o a ,c-.; 7 7 0 2 0 01-1 P 0 C Ce 0 0 F O Z • • r N • C W O .45 0o a 'O 'O -o d v u G 3 3 t 2 a c° 3 3 3 3 a 04 e F H F LL, Z °" 0 00 0 co 0 U U m In N a i3 N d in fi 2 N > > d co z a Z R 4iii a c a 0 0 d 44 ad. 0 0 E 2. e • KCC O 0 z s° m H > > � z _, a m C C `a L' O N C ❑ L. o o` o ai.B o w o - 6.o O o e W v ` c,- V c 0 o d P. iy ro 0 2 w u C U1 '.,`.z`v N d V c J 9 p 9 'O O .A '�• U O L 'O- H a o u y aa 0 " c 0 0 o c nS o u E O O 0 c v o o ,"5 °u o aOa = 00 .- `v m• o a0a = V4_- 9°J o .c y m a D..0 .F-1 s Vc,'G o .� v m d y L 0'L 'O I i N • '7 3 p ..C-� L a'� V T.` • m '= '3 0 0 c 0-) _ >,, ,,, .o v , . '3 v 0 5- c ml p ' a a n aU 3 n 3s ' = aa' o.P3aa. 5 u., v o �,o o y w c ° to a ,o v .o F ._ .� o fv N N C O3 pq •y v L y O O❑ g v 3 � o wp .o �� 0 � ,v ' v � ya — > 0 &13ot 'y ,a o > gA voa O ,.;Y5nm ow io m •'-' o el a 'J 'o° i E —''s - � A U A o u .�° A O a N o y a v m s c to PI 'm' m R as 75 "Z3 c n 0 `�° ° E 0 O a o to v 0 v 3cn 4_ F- a OD T vi .-:,0 O 'O ,, 4 ° 8 c 3 yam,'• W '> c ca ,Y, as y,v -o c o o = c oo c o '_ m = c °o U m� � 0or• na Iv, '�°� s o � � 3 � � 0 ° .�-� C' _ Z a 0 C ?? E 0) a.) p . a) Y CO Z'O is oba.° .---E H 3 a 0 3A Q O = - .` ,...ca O O C C ,Fj . v a V Ill 4 ❑ m y o ct ,-9 y V O 0 F o 0 U s o q, • z o w z d M v "' w o m fn C4en cn o m Q Q :a:, v w s g m 3 ,._7_, ._7 H O• O zz c m O .". F E, F ._ • O z Z w 9 O MN No a, � 0 y 3: It T Obi r O OM, OK •w e L. M • M in • m 4S . s � s in � s :4- Li., E E E M a, 7. c U a a w a -tt co I. h, E oUmO Qa az PI N9x rn O 0.v-1 groin U a in z N m E ≥ '- a la z a a c 41 v • z) a a a0 E H c . O o F F 2 s 00 b9 W• R Ca CO a U FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO 5.2.1.3. Effects of the Preferred Alternative No known populations of CBP occur in or near the project area; however, suitable habitat is present at several river crossings along both the 1-25 and BNSF routes. Based on the current conditions described below, and additional avoidance and minimization commitments incorporated into the project, it was determined that the Preferred Alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, CBP. Because of the quality of suitable habitat present, final presence/absence surveys for CBP will be conducted within one year prior to construction at the St. Vrain River at SH 119,the St. Vrain River at 1-25, the Little Thompson River at 1-25, the Little Thompson River at the BNSF alignment, the Big Thompson River at 1-25, the Big Thompson River at the BNSF alignment, and the Cache la Poudre River at 1-25 (Figure 3). If CBP populations are discovered in the project area, potential direct impacts could include loss of individuals or disturbance to habitat during construction and habitat fragmentation The Preferred Alternative could result in indirect effects from increases in • runoff. The addition of a highway lane on either side of the existing road, new transit stations, carpool lots, and maintenance facilities would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. As stated earlier, under current conditions the Preferred Alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, CBP. Current conditions are not expected to improve over the next 20 years and establishment of CBP communities is not likely to occur between now and the construction of the Preferred Alternative (i.e., the next 20 years). However, the following conditions would trigger formal consultation between FHWA/CDOT and the Service as described in Section 7 of this document: • New populations of CBP are discovered within or near the construction area as the Preferred Alternative is implemented, or • The species is observed during preconstruction surveys. 5.2.1.4 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects may result from future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the regional study area and that may destroy, degrade, or • ERO 15 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • fragment CBP habitat. In addition, human activities associated with infrastructure, industrial, and residential development and recreation may influence intra—and interspecies competition and favor predation. For example, changes in habitat resulting from development could facilitate the establishment of noxious weeds, which could, in turn, displace the more fragile CBP. Future development and related infrastructure are likely the most serious threats to any threatened, endangered, or candidate species in or near the regional study area. New development in the regional study area may have cumulative adverse impacts to CBP. Increased development in the regional study area will result in habitat loss; increased traffic volumes; increased noise and air pollution; increased human activity; and a greater number of domestic pets, plants, and livestock. As the population within the regional study area grows, vehicle miles traveled are expected to increase from approximately 27,200,000 miles in 2001, to approximately 52,800,000 miles in 2035 under the Preferred Alternative. Portions of the regional study area have infestations of nonnative and noxious weeds, • including diffuse knapweed (Centaurea sp.) and Canada thistle(Cirsium arvense). Increased development in the regional study area will likely result in an increase in noxious weeds that could invade existing CBP habitat. 5.2.2 Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid(ULTO) 5.2.2.1. Species Background, Habitat Requirements, and Distribution ULTO is a perennial orchid with erect glandular pubescent stems 8 to 20 inches tall rising from tuberous thickened roots, mainly basal narrow leaves, and a spike of clustered white to ivory flowers that are approximately '/z inch long. ULTO was federally listed as threatened in 1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 2048 (January 17, 1992)). ULTO occurs at elevations below 6,800 feet in moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes (CNPS 1989). Widely scattered populations of ULTO are present in Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Nevada. The primary threats to this species are loss or modification of habitat(57 Fed. Reg. 2051 (January 17, 1992)). Where ULTO is found,the vegetative cover is relatively open; dense, overgrown sites are not conducive to the establishment of • MO 16 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO new populations of ULTO. Where ULTO is found, soils are typically alluvial deposits of sandy, gravelly material that are saturated to within 18 inches of the surface for at least part of the growing season. Along the Colorado Front Range, ULTO habitat occurs primarily on moist, subirrigated or seasonally flooded valley bottoms, gravel bars, old oxbows, or floodplains bordering springs, lakes, and rivers at elevations from 4,500 to 6,800 feet(CNPS 1989). The vegetation at sites where ULTO is found typically includes species that are considered facultative wetland or obligate wetland species by the Service. Common Front Range associated species include horsetail (Equisetum spp.), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), verbena(Verbena hastata), slenderleaf false foxglove (Agalinis tenuifolia), great blue lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium spp.), arrowgrass (Triglochin spp.), Indiangrass(Sorghastrum nutans), bluegrass,timothy (Phleum pratense), arctic rush, ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii), redtop, reedgrass(Calamagrostis spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). In riparian areas, ULTO may be present in grassy openings between cottonwood groves or sandbar willow patches. • 5.2.2.2. Suitable Habitat In Colorado, ULTO is known to occur in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld counties. Known populations of ULTO are on the western edge of the regional study area on South Boulder Creek and in Fort Collins near Horsetooth Reservoir. No critical habitat has been designated for ULTO. No known populations of ULTO occur in or near the project area. Habitat evaluations for ULTO were conducted at major stream drainages and ditches in the project area. Presence/absence surveys for ULTO were not conducted as part of this PBA because surveys are only valid for three years, and the proposed construction date is more than 10 years away. Habitat evaluations found that no suitable habitat for ULTO was present at or near the following locations (Table 3): • BNSF alignment and Sugarmill Road, • Unnamed ditch at SH 66 and North 115th Street, • Oligarchy Ditch at SH 119, • Ish Ditch at the BNSF alignment, • ERO 17 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Oligarchy Ditch at the BNSF alignment, and • BNSF alignment near Divide Reservoir. These locations lack suitable habitat and are not associated with the floodplain of an intermittent or perennial drainage. As a result, no further presence/absence surveys would be needed unless new suitable habitat or new populations of ULTO are identified nearby. Suitable habitat for ULTO was identified within riparian habitat along the St. Vrain, Little Thompson, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre rivers where these drainages are crossed by 1-25 or the proposed commuter rail alignment. These sites are within the 100- year floodplain of tributaries to the South Platte River and are described in greater detail in Table 3. Potentially suitable ULTO habitat was also identified in Boulder County at an unnamed ditch at SH 66 and North 115th Street, Ish Ditch at the BNSF alignment, and at the BNSF alignment near the Divide Reservoir. Due to lack of access to these three sites in September 2008, it was difficult to determine if suitable habitat was present, but because these sites are wetlands in Boulder County, a presence/absence survey will be conducted prior to construction. 5.2.2.3. Effects of the Preferred Alternative No known populations of ULTO occur in or near the project area; however, suitable habitat is present at several river crossings along both the 1-25 and BNSF routes. Based on the current conditions described below and additional avoidance and minimization commitments incorporated into the project, it was determined that the Preferred Alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, ULTO. Because of the quality of suitable habitat present, final presence/absence surveys for ULTO will be conducted following Service guidelines prior to construction at the St. Vrain River at SH 119, the St. Vrain River at 1-25, the Little Thompson River at 1-25, the Little Thompson River at BNSF alignment, the Big Thompson River at 1-25, the Big Thompson River at BNSF alignment, and the Cache la Poudre River at 1-25 (Figure 3). Habitat assessments and/or presence/absence surveys (as needed) will be conducted at the wetlands in Boulder County with potentially suitable ULTO habitat described above. • 1 ERO 8 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO If ULTO populations are discovered in the project area, potential direct impacts could include loss of individuals or disturbance to habitat during construction. The Preferred Alternative could result in indirect effects from increases in runoff. The addition of a highway lane on either side of the existing road, new transit stations, carpool lots, and maintenance facilities would increase impervious surfaces, thereby increasing runoff and exposing the surrounding vegetation to higher levels of pollutants. As stated earlier, under current conditions the Preferred Alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, ULTO. Current conditions are not expected to improve over the next 20 years and establishment of ULTO communities is not likely to occur between now and construction of the Preferred Alternative (i.e., the next 20 years). However, the following conditions would trigger formal consultation between FHWA/CDOT and the Service as described in Section 7 of this document: • New populations of the ULTO are discovered within or near the construction area as the Preferred Alternative is implemented, or • The species is observed during preconstruction surveys. • 5.2.2.4 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for ULTO would be similar to cumulative effects for CBP. Cumulative effects may result from future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the regional study area and that may destroy, degrade, or fragment ULTO habitat. Human activities associated with infrastructure, industrial, and residential development and recreation may influence intra—and interspecies competition and favor predation. Changes in habitat resulting from development could facilitate the establishment of noxious weeds, which could, in turn, displace the more fragile ULTO. As with CBP, future development and related infrastructure are likely the most serious threats to ULTO in or near the regional study area. New development in the regional study area may have cumulative adverse impacts to ULTO. Increased development in the regional study area will result in habitat loss, increased traffic volumes, increased noise and air pollution, increased human activity, and a greater number of domestic pets, plants, and livestock. As the population within the regional • study area grows, vehicle miles traveled are expected to increase from approximately ERO 19 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • 27,200,000 miles in 2001 to approximately 52,800,000 miles in 2035 under the Preferred Alternative. Portions of the regional study area have infestations of nonnative and noxious weeds, including diffuse knapweed and Canada thistle. Increased development in the regional study area will likely result in an increase in noxious weeds that could invade existing ULTO habitat. 5.2.3. Black footed Ferret 5.2.3.1. Species Background,Habitat Requirements, and Distribution The black-footed ferret is listed as endangered under the ESA. Black-footed ferrets are associated with black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies, on which they depend for food and shelter. Over the past century, prairie dog distribution has been substantially reduced due to habitat loss, plague, and poisoning practices. Due to the loss of prairie dog habitat, the black-footed ferret has been nearly extirpated. The Service considers black-tailed prairie dog towns or complexes of greater than 80 acres potential black-footed ferret habitat(Service 1989). 5.2.3.2. Suitable Habitat Based on previously gathered data, the Service assumes the black-footed ferret is absent from the project area. A block clearance area where black-footed ferret surveys are not required has been established for eastern Colorado (Service 2009). All of the regional study area, including the project area, is within this block clearance area. 5.2.3.3. Effects of the Preferred Alternative Because the black-footed ferret does not occur within the regional study area, the Preferred Alternative would have no effect on this species. 5.24. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse(Preble's) 5.2.4.1. Species Background,Habitat Requirements, and Distribution Preble's was listed as a threatened species in Colorado and Wyoming on May 13, 1998. As of July 8, 2011, after several status evaluations that considered genetics, meta- population analysis, and distribution within significant portions of its range, Preble's remains listed as a threatened species in both Colorado and Wyoming. Final revised critical habitat for Preble's was designated on December 15, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 78429), • 20 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO but no critical habitat occurs in the project area(Service 2010b). Designated critical habitat occurs within the regional study area on South Boulder Creek, but is outside of the project area for the Preferred Alternative. Typically, Preble's occurs below 7,600 feet in elevation along the Front Range of north-central Colorado and south-central Wyoming. Preble's generally occupies lowlands with medium to high moisture along permanent or intermittent streams and canals (Meaney et al. 1997). Preble's occurs in low undergrowth consisting of grasses and forbs, in open wet meadows, riparian corridors near forests, or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover(Meaney et al. 1997). Preble's typically inhabits areas characterized by well-developed plains riparian vegetation with relatively undisturbed grassland and a water source nearby. Preble's have been found to use uplands as far as 100 meters beyond the floodplain. Current Service guidelines recommend that projects within 300 feet of 100-year floodplains associated with rivers, creeks, and their tributaries (and projects that may • have potential secondary impacts to such areas) be assessed as to their potential direct and indirect impacts(e.g., sedimentation, increased runoff, and increased light pollution) to Preble's and Preble's habitat (Service 2004c). Under existing regulations, either a habitat assessment or a full presence/absence survey for Preble's is required for any habitat-disturbing activity within areas determined to be suitable Preble's habitat. 5.2.4.2. Occupied and Suitable Habitat The typical definition of occupied Preble's habitat is an area 300 feet beyond the 100- year floodplain for a distance of 1 mile upstream and downstream of a known Preble's population. Within the regional study area, Preble's is known to occur in riparian habitat along South Boulder Creek, the Big Thompson River,the Little Thompson River, and the South Platte River downstream of the confluence with the Big Thompson River(Figure 4). Suitable habitat is defined for this PBA as stream and riparian habitats within 300 feet of 100-year floodplains that match the habitat description provided above. Although described separately in this document, when calculating impacts in this PBA, suitable Preble's habitat is treated the same as occupied habitat. • ERO 21 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NOR[II 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO ERO conducted habitat assessments for Preble's following Service guidelines during site visits on April 18 and 22, 2005; August 31, 2005; and September 16, 2008. ERO also reviewed the available trapping data from the Service (2010c). Clearance surveys were not conducted as part of this PBA because the proposed construction date is more than 10 years away. The habitat assessments focused on all drainages within the regional study area where project activities would occur. These drainages include the Cache la Poudre River, Fossil Creek, Big Thompson River, Little Thompson River, St. Vrain River, Spring Creek, Little Dry Creek, Big Dry Creek, and the South Platte River. Each of these drainages is addressed individually below. Past trapping surveys and habitat quality near each crossing are summarized in Table 4. Cache la Poudre River Impacts to the Cache la Poudre River may occur where the river is crossed by the BNSF alignment and 1-25. A commuter bus station in Greeley would be located in an urbanized area within about 700 feet of the edge of riparian habitat along the Cache la Poudre River. • Riparian habitat along the Cache la Poudre River at the BNSF alignment consists of cottonwood woodland with an understory of smooth brome. Although marginally suitable habitat is present, extensive trapping surveys along this reach of the Cache la Poudre River have failed to find Preble's (Table 4). Extensive riparian habitat is present at the Cache la Poudre River at 1-25. The dominant riparian vegetation consists of plains cottonwood with an understory of sandbar willow, peachleaf willow, crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, and reed canarygrass. The surrounding land use is agricultural. Although suitable habitat is present, extensive trapping surveys along this reach of the Cache la Poudre River have failed to find Preble's (Table 4). • 22 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Table 4. Summary of Preble's trapping records for the regional study area. Location Past Trapping Surveys Conclusion Comments Cache la Poudre Five negative trapping Marginally suitable Habitat and trapping River at BNSF surveys from 1998 to 2002 habitat present,but not records will be alignment within 1 mile upstream or occupied by Preble's at reassessed with the downstream. the time of the surveys. Service to determine the need for a survey prior to construction.` Cache la Poudre Three negative trapping Suitable habitat present, Habitat and trapping River at 1-25 surveys from 1999 to 2004 but not occupied by records will be within 1 mile of 1-25. Preble's at the time of reassessed with the Many more negative the surveys. Service to determine trapping surveys within 10 the need for a survey miles. prior to construction.` Cache la Poudre One negative trapping Urban area,not No further surveys or River at Greeley survey in 2001 within 1 currently occupied by mitigation required. Commuter Bus mile;negative trapping Preble's and unlikely to Station survey in 2000 within 2 be occupied in the miles. future. Spring Creek at Three negative trapping Low quality,highly Habitat and trapping BNSF surveys from 2000 to 2002 disturbed riparian records will be within I mile of BNSF. vegetation;not reassessed with the currently occupied by, Service to determine • or suitable for,Preble's. the need for a survey prior to construction.* Fossil Creek at BNSF Three negative trapping Surrounded by urban No further surveys or surveys from 1998 to 2000 area,not occupied by mitigation required. within 1 mile. Preble's at the time of the surveys and unlikely to be occupied in the future. Fossil Creek at 1-25 One negative trapping Not suitable habitat No further surveys or survey in 2002 within 1 (cattail). mitigation required. mile. Big Thompson River Two negative trapping Suitable habitat present, Habitat and trapping at BNSF surveys in 1999 and 2001 but not occupied by records will be within 1 mile. Six Preble's at the time of reassessed with the additional trapping surveys the surveys. Service to determine between BNSF and 1-25 the need for a survey were all negative. prior to construction.` Big Thompson River Three negative surveys just Low-quality habitat in A population of at I-25 west of 1-25 from 1995 to project area at 1-25; Preble's is unlikely to 2003;one positive survey occupied Preble's occur in the project east of I-25 in 2001,less habitat present east of area,but Preble's is than I mile downstream. 1-25. assumed to use this area as a movement corridor. • FRO 23 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Location Past Trapping Surveys Conclusion Comments Little Thompson Two negative trapping Suitable habitat present, Habitat and trapping River at BNSF surveys from 1997 to 2000 but not occupied by records will be within 1 mile. Preble's at the time of reassessed with the the surveys. Service to determine the need for a survey prior to construction.* Little Thompson No surveys within 1 mile. Low-quality habitat in It is unlikely that a River at 1-25 Two positive surveys more project area. Occupied population of Preble's than I mile east of I-25. Preble's habitat is is present at this site, present east of 1-25. but Preble's is assumed to use this site as a movement corridor. St.Vrain River at I-25 Four negative surveys Suitable habitat is Habitat and trapping and SH 119 within 1 mile upstream or present,but not records will be downstream. Eight occupied by Preble's at reassessed with the additional surveys between the time of the surveys. Service to determine U.S.287 and I-25,and two the need for a survey more surveys east of 1-25 prior to construction. were all negative during the period from 1999 to 2003. Little Dry Creek at I- Never surveyed,evaluated Not suitable habitat, No further surveys or 25 but not trapped several Preble's unlikely to mitigation required. • times;not suitable habitat occur. (cattails). Dry Creek at BNSF Two negative trapping Low-quality riparian Habitat and trapping surveys in 1997 and 1998 vegetation, records will be within 1 mile. channelized,not reassessed with the occupied by,or suitable Service to determine for Preble's at the time the need for a survey of the surveys. prior to construction.* Big Dry Creek at 1-25 Within block clearance Not occupied by No surveys are zone. Preble's. required. South Platte River at Seven negative trapping Transit station sites are No further surveys or Ft.Lupton Commuter surveys from 1998 to 2004 not suitable habitat. mitigation required. Bus Transit Station within 2 miles upstream and downstream. South Platte River at One negative trapping Potential transit station No further surveys or Platteville Commuter survey in 2002 within 1 sites are not within mitigation required. Bus Transit Station mile. suitable habitat. South Platte River at Two negative trapping Potential transit station No further surveys or Evans Commuter Bus surveys in 2000 and 2002 is near the Cache la mitigation required. Transit Station within I mile. Poudre River in a cultivated field and is not suitable habitat. 'CD0T will comply with the survey requirements/guidelines and schedules existing at the time of preconstruction surveys. Current survey guidelines recommend surveys to be conducted for two years prior to construction. • LW 24 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO The commuter bus transit station in Evans is near the Cache la Poudre River. The proposed transit station site is not suitable habitat, and past trapping surveys on the Cache la Poudre River in Greeley (including a survey within 1 mile of the proposed transit station)have not captured Preble's (Table 4). Fossil Creek Impacts to Fossil Creek are likely at the BNSF alignment and 1-25 crossings. Three trapping surveys on Fossil Creek near the BNSF alignment have failed to capture Preble's (Table 4). Riparian habitat on Fossil Creek at 1-25 consists of cattails and is not suitable Preble's habitat. Big Thompson River The Big Thompson River may be affected by the Preferred Alternative at the BNSF alignment and 1-25 crossings. Suitable habitat such as cottonwoods and riparian shrubs is present on the Big Thompson River at the BNSF alignment, but several trapping surveys in this area have failed to capture Preble's (Table 4). • Riparian habitat along the Big Thompson River at I-25 consists of plains cottonwood and peachleaf willow with an understory of sandbar willow and reed canarygrass. Surrounding land use consists of a state wildlife area west of 1-25 and agriculture east of I-25. Extensive trapping surveys along the Big Thompson River within the regional study area did not capture Preble's; with the exception of one trapping survey in 2001 less than 1 mile downstream from I-25 (Table 4). The project footprint and nearby riparian areas are heavily disturbed by past human activity including the presence of the highway, past channelization of the river, and ongoing agricultural activities. The section of the Big Thompson River at I-25 has steep banks bordering a narrow riparian corridor. The riparian habitat in the project area is unlikely to have a resident population of Preble's but may function as a movement corridor for Preble's moving between the known occupied habitat downstream to the east and suitable habitat upstream to the west. Little Thompson River The Little Thompson River is likely to be affected by the Preferred Alternative at the 1-25 crossing, but not at the BNSF alignment. The riparian habitat along the Little Thompson River at U.S. 287 (about 1 mile west of the BNSF alignment) consists of • ERO 25 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • cottonwood woodland with no woody shrubs in the understory. Although suitable habitat is present, trapping surveys within I mile of the BNSF alignment have not captured Preble's (Table 4). In addition, the Little Thompson River should not be affected by the commuter rail as no bridge widening is expected. The existing track will be used at the BNSF crossing and no passing track is anticipated. Riparian vegetation along the Little Thompson River at 1-25 consists of sandbar willow, cattail, curly dock, smooth brome, and reed canarygrass. The riparian habitat along the Little Thompson River at 1-25 consists of a narrow strip along the river bordered by agricultural fields. No trapping surveys have been conducted within 1 mile of the 1-25 crossing, but Preble's has been captured approximately 3 miles downstream from 1-25. The Little Thompson River at 1-25 site appears to be low-quality habitat based on the site visits. Although the riparian habitat on the Little Thompson River at 1-25 is unlikely to have a resident population of Preble's, it may be used by Preble's as a movement corridor. St. Vrain River • The St. Vrain River may be affected by the Preferred Alternative at the 1-25 crossing. The Preferred Alternative also includes a new rail corridor that would parallel the river on the north following SH 119 from Longmont east to 1-25. Riparian vegetation along the St. Vrain River at 1-25 consists of sandbar willow, cattail, smooth brome, reed canarygrass, and curly dock. East of I-25 the banks are lined with riprap. West of 1-25 the vegetation of the riparian corridor is similar, with a mix of plains cottonwood, sandbar willow, peachleaf willow, smooth brome, and reed canarygrass. Although suitable habitat is present, many trapping surveys along the St. Vrain River from U.S. 287 to 1-25, and further east, have consistently produced no Preble's (Table 4). Little Dry Creek Little Dry Creek may be affected by the Preferred Alternative at the 1-25 crossing. Riparian vegetation along Little Dry Creek at 1-25 consists primarily of cattail and is not suitable habitat for Preble's. This reach of Little Dry Creek has been evaluated and determined to not be suitable Preble's habitat in the past, but has never been trapped (Table 4). • 26 ERo Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO South Platte River The South Platte River will not be directly affected by the Preferred Alternative; however, several commuter bus transit stations may be constructed along U.S. 85 near the South Platte River at Fort Lupton, Platteville, and Evans. Numerous negative trapping surveys have been conducted on the South Platte River near Ft. Lupton, and the proposed transit stations are not in suitable Preble's habitat. All of the Platteville transit station sites are in previously developed areas or cultivated fields, and are not suitable Preble's habitat. The U.S. 85 Evans commuter bus station is approximately 1,000 feet north of the South Platte River and more than 700 feet from riparian vegetation and suitable Preble's habitat. All other potential station sites are not near the South Platte River or are in urban environments and are not suitable Preble's habitat. Block-Cleared Areas Portions of the regional study area, including Big Dry Creek, are within the Service- designated Preble's Denver metropolitan area block clearance zone (Figure 4). In designating the block clearance zone, the Service eliminated the need for individuals or • agencies to coordinate with the Service prior to conducting activities in habitats that otherwise would be deemed to have potential to support Preble's (Carlson 2000). The establishment of the block clearance zone is based on the likely absence of Preble's within the area. The block clearance zone has been updated and is valid until June 2013 (Linner 2010). Occupied or suitable habitat is present at the Cache la Poudre River at I-25,the Big Thompson River at 1-25 and the BNSF alignment, the Little Thompson River at I-25 and the BNSF alignment, and the St. Vrain River at I-25 and SH 119. For the purposes of calculating impacts in this PBA, these sites are considered suitable Preble's habitat and treated as potentially occupied. Spring Creek and Dry Creek at the BNSF alignment currently provide unsuitable habitat for Preble's. All the sites listed above will be reassessed with the Service during final design and potentially surveyed prior to construction following Service guidelines in effect at the time of the survey (current guideline recommend surveys for two years prior to construction). If new habitat or populations of Preble's are discovered within or near the construction area as the • ERO 27 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO 411 Preferred Alternative is implemented or the species is observed during preconstruction surveys, FHWA/CDOT will formally consult with the Service as described in Section 7 of this document. 5.2.4.3. Effects of the Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative could result in direct and indirect effects to Preble's and its habitat. The highway widening components of the Preferred Alternative would disturb approximately 0.72 acre of occupied Preble's habitat at the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers, and 1.21 acres of suitable Preble's habitat at the Cache la Poudre and St. Vrain rivers (Table 5). Temporary disturbance to riparian habitat during bridge replacement at these river crossings could affect Preble's habitat on these drainages. A portion of the impacted areas would be revegetated and restored. Direct effects to Preble's could include incidental take of individuals and loss of vegetation that could provide habitat. Indirect effects could include increased habitat fragmentation and decreased use of the area as a movement corridor due to the increased width of I-25 bridge crossings of the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Any new street lights • near bridges could indirectly increase susceptibility of Preble's to predation. Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat from the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 5. Effects shown in Table 5 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. The transit components of the Preferred Alternative would not affect currently occupied Preble's habitat; however, suitable habitat is present along several drainages crossed by the proposed commuter rail alignment. Suitable Preble's habitat would be affected at the St. Vrain River at SH 119 (0.06 acre)and Big Thompson River at the BNSF alignment(0.08 acre). Potential direct effects to Preble's habitat are similar to the highway components and are summarized in Table 5. Actual impacts of both the highway and transit components may be different at the time of construction because new data on Preble's distribution may be available in the future. The general process for future consultation with the Service is provided in Section 7 of this document. Effects shown in Table 5 are representative of the effects that are expected to occur based on currently available data. Interrelated and • 28 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO interdependent actions include operation of a commuter rail, and construction and operation of transit stations and maintenance facilities,which are included in the Preferred Alternative. Because of the potential direct and indirect effects described above, it was determined that the Preferred Alternative may affect, likely to adversely affect Preble's. Measures proposed to avoid, minimize, and offset potential impacts to Preble's and its habitat, including habitat enhancement, are discussed in Section 6—Preconstruction Surveys and Conservation Measures. Table 5. Permanent impacts to Preble's habitat from construction of the Preferred Alternative. Location Total Impacts(in Acres) Occupied Preble's Habitat Big Thompson River at I-25 0.47 Little Thompson River at 1-25 0.25 Total occupied habitat 0.72 • Suitable Preble's Habitat Cache la Poudre River at I-25 1.16 Big Thompson River at BNSF 0.08 St.Vrain River at 1-25 0.05 St.Vrain River at SH 119 0.06 Total suitable habitat 1.35 Total habitat(occupied and suitable) 2.07 5.2.4.4 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects may result from future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the regional study area and that may destroy, degrade, or fragment Preble's habitat. In addition, human activities associated with infrastructure, industrial, and residential development and recreation may influence intra—and interspecies competition and favor predation. Domestic predators such as cats and dogs could have harmful effects on Preble's. Future development and related infrastructure are likely the most serious threats to any Preble's populations in or near the regional study area. New development in the regional study area may have cumulative adverse impacts to Preble's. Increased • ERO 29 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO development in the regional study area will result in habitat loss, increased traffic volumes, increased noise and air pollution, increased human activity, and a greater number of domestic pets, plants, and livestock. Activities associated with urban development may degrade Preble's habitat and disrupt movement corridors. Increased human activity, including noise and air pollution from machinery, may discourage use of habitat. Human activity and associated development may constrain wildlife travel between adjacent blocks of habitat. Any increase in residential development likely will increase the number of domestic cats and dogs in areas adjacent to Preble's habitat, which may increase predation of Preble's. Portions of the regional study area also have infestations of nonnative and noxious weeds, including diffuse knapweed and Canada thistle. Noxious weeds do not pose a significant threat to Preble's habitat but may reduce the amount of desirable forage and cover. Preble's populations along drainages in the regional study area have probably declined in historical times. Ryon (1996) found that Preble's were no longer present at • many sites where they had previously been trapped, including near Longmont within the regional study area. The Preferred Alternative could affect occupied Preble's habitat and movements at two locations—I-25 at the Big Thompson River and 1-25 at the Little Thompson River. Cumulative effects at these two locations are described below. • Big Thompson River at 1-25 —Future land use mapping shows planned residential and commercial development south of the Big Thompson River at 1-25; however, the land surrounding the river is largely within the Big Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area west of I-25, and the agricultural land east of 1-25 is likely to remain undeveloped according to the mapping. Future land uses are unlikely to make this reach of the Big Thompson River unsuitable habitat as a movement corridor for Preble's. • Little Thompson River at I-25 - Some residential development is expected south of the Little Thompson River, but in general, the surrounding land use will remain agricultural. Riparian habitat near the Little Thompson River will likely remain suitable as a Preble's movement corridor. • 30 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO In both locations,the cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative on Preble's habitat would be minimal. 5.25 Platte River Species 5.2.5.1. Species Background,Habitat Requirements, and Distribution Whooping crane (Grits americana), least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and western prairie fringed orchid(Platanthera praeclara) are species that rely heavily on habitat provided by the Platte River system. The whooping crane, least tern, and piping plover may migrate through Colorado or may occasionally nest on wide sandy shores of reservoirs, typically in eastern Colorado. The regional study area consists primarily of semiarid grassland and residential/commercial development habitat unsuitable for these species. The pallid sturgeon is a fish found in the Missouri and Middle Mississippi rivers. The western prairie fringed orchid is a plant species found in tallgrass prairie ecosystem habitats west of the Mississippi River. 5.2.5.2. Suitable Habitat • No suitable habitat for the whooping crane, least tern, piping plover, pallid sturgeon, and western prairie fringed orchid is found in the regional study area. 5.2.5.3. Effects of the Preferred Alternative Depletions to the Platte River system due to CDOT activities are addressed by the State of Colorado's participation in the South Platte Water Related Activities Program (SPWRAP)through the "Memorandum of Agreement for Implementation and Operation of the Colorado Portion of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Plan (PRRIP). The State has made and continues to make financial and other contributions to the PRRIP. In addition, SPWRAP has created a "Class X-1" membership specifically for and limited to the State of Colorado for diversions and depletions by state agencies that are comparatively small. According to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), contributions previously made are deemed payment of all SPWRAP assessments for the Class X-1 membership for the duration of the First Increment of the PRRIP, which expires in 2020. However, because the FHWA may provide funds for the Preferred Alternative, in order to satisfy their obligation under the ESA, Section 7 consultation is required. • ERO 31 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • With regard to possible effects from water depletions to the Platte River system, potential project components that could result in depletions include: I. Detention facilities; 2. Dust abatement activities; 3. Wetland mitigation;, 4. Structure backfill; 5. Embankment and ABC Compaction; and 6. Concrete needed for roadway, slope paving, embankments, inlets, guardrails, sidewalks, and curb and gutter. Because the amount of water to be used cannot be anticipated at the programmatic level, a PRRIP template biological assessment will be submitted to the Service during project-specific Section 7 consultation with the Service. Project-specific biological assessments will estimate the water usage for that particular phase or project. Following consultation and the Service's issuance of a biological opinion, project-level depletions will be monitored annually by FHWA/CDOT and reported to the Service. The Platte River species will not be considered further in this document. 6. Preconstruction Surveys and Conservation Measures • 6.1. Colorado Butterfly Plant The Service has not established official survey or monitoring guidelines for the CBP. Preconstruction habitat assessments and/or surveys for the CBP will be conducted during the survey season just prior to construction in areas with suitable habitat that are not covered by the SGPI. In the unlikely event CBP is found within the construction footprint, specific conservation measures would be developed in coordination with the Service. The portion of the Preferred Alternative area along I-25 is within the area covered by the SGPL, and no additional conservation measures would be required for CBP in these areas, provided that the SGPI is still in effect when construction begins. Currently, work is projected to begin after 2030. Mitigation commitments of the FEIS that benefit CBP(and ULTO) include sediment- and erosion-control techniques (as indicated by CDOT erosion-control practices)that will • 32 ERo Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMEIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO be established to prevent sediment loading and impacts to CBP/ULTO habitat. An integrated weed management plan or project-specific CDOT 217 specification will also be incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction to control the infestation and spread of noxious weeds. Additional conservation measures could include avoiding impacts by establishing a no construction zone or, in the event of unavoidable impacts, enhancing adjacent or off-site habitat. 6.2. Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid Suitable ULTO habitat within the construction footprint will be surveyed during the three survey seasons prior to construction, or according to Service survey protocol at the time of construction. In Colorado,the Service requires surveys in areas of suitable habitat on the 100-year floodplain of the South Platte River and its perennial tributaries, or in any area with suitable habitat in Boulder and Jefferson counties. ULTO does not bloom until late July to early September(depending on the year) and timing of surveys must be synchronized with blooming (Service 1992). • If ULTO is found within the construction footprint, specific conservation measures would be developed in coordination with the Service. Conservation measures include the mitigation commitments of the FEIS for sediment and erosion control and noxious weed management described above. Additional conservation measures could include avoiding impacts by establishing a no construction zone or, in the event of unavoidable impacts, enhancing adjacent or off-site habitat. 6.3. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Preconstruction habitat assessments/trapping surveys will be conducted following the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Survey Guidelines, revised April 2004 (Service 2004c). These guidelines recommend that projects within 300 feet of 100-year floodplains associated with rivers, creeks, and their tributaries be evaluated for suitable Preble's habitat by a qualified biologist. Areas containing suitable habitat generally require trapping surveys to determine the presence or absence of Preble's. The Service recommends two years of trapping. As a general standard, 750 trapnights (one trap set for one night=one trapnight) are appropriate for surveys conducted between June 1 and • ERO 33 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • August 31. Trapping between September 1 and September 15 requires a minimum of six nights and 1,000 trapnights. A number of conservation measures would be implemented during final design to avoid and minimize impacts to Preble's and to enhance or create habitat. • Construction within occupied Preble's habitat at the Little Thompson and Big Thompson rivers and any areas found to be occupied by Preble's by future surveys will be limited to Preble's inactive season (November through April). • Visible barriers will be used to limit the area of construction within occupied habitat. • If culverts in occupied or suitable Preble's habitat are replaced or upgraded, the new culverts would incorporate ledges to facilitate small mammal passage. • Lighting within and near Preble's habitat will incorporate current technology and standards (e.g., Dark Skies) at the time of design to reduce lighting impacts to Preble's. • Where impacts to occupied habitat are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation would be provided through enhancement or replacement with suitable Preble's habitat. Permanent impacts would be mitigated at a 3:1 • mitigation to impact ratio;temporary impacts would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation measures for Preble's could be combined with wetland mitigation. Wetland mitigation measures also may replace any impacts to suitable unoccupied Preble's habitat. CDOT would employ conservation measures to minimize impacts during construction. These measures would include: • Stockpiling construction materials in bare areas rather than on top of existing vegetation in known occupied and suitable habitats. • Informing construction workers the reasons for and importance of limiting impacts to vegetated habitat outside the work area in known occupied habitat. • Supervising work on a daily basis to ensure that conditions established by the Service are met. • Implementing concurrent revegetation during construction to the maximum extent practicable. • Providing a report to the Service that includes photographic documentation of site conditions prior to and at the completion of construction. • Reporting any inadvertent mortalities found during construction as specified in current trapping guidelines. CDOT will report all relevant • 34 ERo Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO information within 24 hours and subsequently submit a completed Injury/Mortality Documentation Report to the Service, Ecological Services Colorado Field Office or the Service's Division of Law Enforcement in Lakewood, Colorado (telephone 303-274-3560). • In the unlikely event that a Preble's mouse (dead, injured, or otherwise) is located during construction, the Colorado Field Office of the Service will be contacted immediately to identify additional measures, as appropriate, to minimize impacts to Preble's. In many cases, existing culverts would be replaced by more and/or larger culverts or by bridges, which would likely facilitate movement of Preble's between habitat areas. Specifics of the conservation measures will be developed in coordination with the Service during final design and prior to construction. Documentation of the final conservation measures would include plans and specifications for creation of, and enhancements to, Preble's habitat that could result in an increase in Preble's habitat. 7. Process for Future Section 7 Consultation • 7.1. Project-Specific Consultation Project-specific consultation will be a two-step process. The first step will be to consult with the Service during final design for each specific project of the Preferred Alternative to determine if new species are listed or habitat conditions and/or species distribution of currently listed species has changed. Based on this consultation, project designers will incorporate avoidance and minimization measures into the project design to the maximum extent practicable. Because of the potential time lapse between final design and project construction, the second step will occur prior to initiation of construction activities. Approximately two years prior to any planned construction activity, FHWA/CDOT will conduct specific consultation with the Service. Project- specific consultation will: • Provide an update of baseline conditions. • Consult on species' ESA listing status or habitat modifications for separate actions. • Determine the need and appropriate protocols for any specific species surveys or habitat assessments. • FRO 35 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Outline new listed species commitments (may require an amendment to this PBA; FHWA/CDOT will consult with the Service at the time a new listed species may be affected by this project). • Consult with the Service if CBP, ULTO, or Preble's are found in new locations not identified in this document. Formal consultation may need to be revised because it is likely the effects determinations will change. • Document construction impacts to listed species and apply conservation measures for the construction phase. Site-specific consultation will include submitting a letter to the Service describing the items listed above for their review and concurrence. Actual impacts to listed species and their habitat will be tracked for each specific construction activity and all activities cumulatively, throughout the implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Table 6 provides a sample impact-tracking table for Preble's. If total cumulative impacts on listed species are equal to or less than allowed under the terms and conditions of the PBO, then the Service will respond with a letter within 30 days indicating whether they agree with the updated baseline and applied conservation measures. If total cumulative impacts on listed species exceed the level of impacts allowed under the terms and • conditions of the PBO, then the Service may require a project-specific BA for the phase or construction project or reopen consultation on the Preferred Alternative. Table 6. Impacts tracking for Preble's habitat from construction of the Preferred Alternative. Amount Incidental of Actual Variance Take Allowable Take from Mitigation Design Statement Take(in (in Allowable Mitigation —Percent Location Date Duration acres) acres) Take Commitment Complete Cache la Poudre 1.16 River at I-25 Big Thompson 0.55 River at I-25 Little Thompson 0.25 River at I-25 St. Vrain River at 0.05 I-25 St. Vrain River at 0.06 SH 119 Total Cumulative 2.07 Impacts • 36 ERO Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH I-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO 7.2. Project-Specific Biological Assessment Project-specific consultation will include submittal of a Biological Assessment(BA) by CDOT for each specific project constructed on North 1-25 that exceeds the impacts covered in the PBO. The project-specific BA may address multiple sites and will conform to construction schedules, funding mechanisms, and any future unforeseen circumstances. The project-specific BA will include: • Detailed project description and any changes since the FEIS or PBO (yet to be issued). • Description of known locations of listed species in the project area. • Specific timing of project construction. • Habitat affected, project effects, and how they will be addressed. Project- specific impacts will be compared to the incidental take permitted in the PBO. • Project tracking table to track the level of impacts, number of individuals of a species taken, and/or acres of habitat lost. • Description of a monitoring program that tracks project-specific and cumulative project effects, level of incidental take, exceedance of • incidental take allowed in the PBO, and effectiveness of avoidance/minimization measures and conservation actions. 7.3 Monitoring and Success Criteria FHWA/CDOT recognizes the importance of a monitoring program for both habitat restoration and evaluation of the response of the target species. The monitoring program will track project-related actions (including the implementation of associated conservation actions) and record adverse effects to evaluate the success of restoration, level of incidental take, and effectiveness of avoidance/minimization measures and conservation measures. Effectiveness monitoring determines if the anticipated impacts stated in this PBA and permitted in the PBO are occurring, and if the objectives of this PBA are met. Effectiveness monitoring will include a determination of the disturbed area (tracked in the project reporting described below) and an accounting of revegetation activities. Revegetation monitoring includes management of the revegetation contract, selecting appropriate plant materials, ensuring proper planting techniques, and implementing appropriate best management practices (BMPs). FHWA/CDOT will work with the Service to develop project-specific success standards. Revegetated areas are • then surveyed following planting until these success standards are met. Success FRO 37 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • standards will likely be similar to standards stated in other PBOs (e.g., 70 percent foliar cover). These monitoring actions will be reported to the Service at the completion of each construction activity. CDOT will deliver a report to the Service that documents the status of all activities covered in the PBA/PBO and all related project-specific BAs to date, any actions taken, additional impacts (if any), and updated project tracking. 7.4 Project Reporting The level of impacts, number of individuals of a species taken, acres of habitat lost, and progress toward mitigation will be tracked and reported (Table 6). The tracking will include all species and habitats in the PBO and the nature of allowable activities that conform to the incidental take statement. This tracking will indicate the need to reinitiate consultation due to unforeseen levels of impact, take, or habitat loss, and allow for tracking of the baseline. The information obtained from tracking will be summarized in a report submitted to the Service. The report will also include on-site conservation actions such as acres of habitat disturbed, acres revegetated, and acres restored; and coordination actions and outcomes. • 8. Conclusions The Preferred Alternative may affect Preble's or its occupied habitat(Table 7). Current information indicates that approximately 0.72 acre of occupied habitat would be directly impacted by construction activities, potentially resulting in disruption of Preble's movement corridors at the Little Thompson and Big Thompson rivers at 1-25. Construction also would disturb about 1.35 acres of suitable Preble's habitat. Conservation measures integrated into final design to avoid habitat would be considered for a project-specific effects determination. Additional conservation measures developed in coordination with the Service would ensure that the Preferred Alternative would not jeopardize the continued presence of Preble's populations in riparian habitat on the Big Thompson and Little Thompson rivers. Based on the best available information, the Preferred Alternative would not likely adversely affect ULTO or CBP because these species are not known to occur in the project area. If these species are found during subsequent surveys, conservation • 3 ER0 8 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 • ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO measures would be developed in consultation with the Service as described in Section 7 of this document. Table 7. Preliminary effects determination for federally listed threatened and endangered species. Species Preliminary Conclusion Colorado butterfly plant May affect,not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies'-tresses orchid May affect,not likely to adversely affect Black-footed ferret No effect Preble's meadow jumping mouse May affect,likely to adversely affect Platte River species No effect 9. List of Preparers and Contacts Made Preparers: Steve Butler, ERO Resources Corporation,Natural resources Specialist Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation, Senior Wildlife Biologist Project Description and Plans Provided by: FHU Resource Specialists Consulted: Alison Deans Michael, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Liaison Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation, Statewide Biologist 10. References Carlson, L. 2000. Colorado Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to Steve Dougherty, ERO Resources Corporation. July 17. Colorado Native Plant Society (CNPS). 1989. Rare Plants of Colorado. Rocky Mountain Nature Association and Colorado Native Plant Society. Boulder, CO. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2008. North 1-25 Wildlife Technical Report. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation and Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2011. North I-25 Wildlife Technical Report Addendum. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation and Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig. Linner, S.C. 2010. Colorado Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to David Bennetts, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. June 15. • ERO 39 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO • Meaney, C.A., A. Deans, N.W. Clippenger, M. Rider, N. Daly, and M. O'Shea-Stone. 1997. Third year survey for Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. Boulder, CO. Michael, A. 2009. Personal communication from Alison Michael, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation. July 20. Michael, A. 2011. Personal communication from Alison Michael, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation. July 6. Peterson, J. 2009. Personal communication from Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation, to Ron Beane, ERO Resources Corporation. July 15. Ryon, T.R. 1996. Evaluation of historical capture sites of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in Colorado. Final Report. MSES Thesis University of Colorado at Denver. May 1. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1989. Black-footed ferret survey guidelines for compliance with Endangered Species Act. Denver, CO and Albuquerque, NM. Service(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Spiranthes diluvialis. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004a. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. January. • Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004b. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Colorado Butterfly Plant. Federal Register; 69: 47834-47862. August 6. Service(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004c. Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) survey guidelines; revised April 2004. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/preble/CONSULTANTS/pmjm2004guidelines.pdf. Service(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Letter to Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation Endangered Species Specialist, from Susan C. Linner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Supervisor. July 14. Service(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Amendment to the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Colorado's Central Short Grass Prairie. February 5. Service(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. USFWS Block-cleared Areas for Black- footed Ferret Surveys in Colorado, September 2009. Available at http://www.fws.gov/m ountai n- prairie/species/mammal s/blackfootedferret/statewide_block_clearance_map_090809f inal.pdf. Last accessed: May 13, 2010. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010a. List of threatened, endangered, and candidate species by county. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Field Office. Last updated: March 2010. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/endspp/countylists/colorado.pdf Last accessed: May 12, 2010. • 40 fR0 Resources Corporation FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT NORTH 1-25 41111 ADAMS,BOULDER,BROOMFIELD,DENVER,LARIMER,AND WELD COUNTIES,COLORADO Service(U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service). 20106. Designation of Critical Habitat for Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius prehlei). Federal Register; 75: 78429-78483. December 15. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010c. Unpublished trapping database for Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Last updated: 2010. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Venner M. 2001. Long-range multi-species advance mitigation: CDOT's shortgrass prairie initiative process and benefits .In Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Irwin C.L., P. Garrett, and K.P. McDermott(eds.). Center for Transportation and the Environment,North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC: pp.200-206. • FRO 41 Resources Corporation Figures • • ERO Resources Corporation , LEGEND . 0 ^/ 1-25 General Improvements Express Bus .•� Wellington / /V Commuter Bus /r, .'N 85 ^/ Commuter Rail \ i • "/ Highways / P.erce , Is' /\/ Arterial Roads I �t I. 16n5 • 0 Express Bus Transit Station A ,e `t O Commuter Bus Transit Station 5 ; r O Commuter Rail Transit Station ,... I Eater ' __ Tuttnath I Severance , ® Commuter Rail Transit Center i 1 ' l Commuter Bus Operational ! 1 _ ._ i 'asor ; ;.3.92. n and Maintenance Facility I Lucem 1 ! `` rte. ; Commuter Rail Operational i 4 i-'--TI and Maintenance Facility j 1 _a ,..Grp ;—..._� . 4 i J Regional Study Area B f cycle, ' i 34 uveland i City Boundaries - - ll ! Evan r v Cities & Towns in Project Area . :a sane ) compon _. - r�wn 0 .i en Li 56 iBerthoud 1 1 fie 1 Gncrest .141 I i• I I , r 0 1 I Need 1 1 ` _ I _ Pianeville 1 L06 . ' Li Longmont 1 itr, i . T j I Vol!Mal Q ` / I 3 ri t N.� �� 4 Frederick ' I ff 1 •0 rlarnnn rod Luso 2 J . j E�x I / vented 9 7 Wallenberg a Botlde( —� `1 lafa;e`te 1. .. 'V` i r Lt'a�tirtr I.Y4lM '3ri Jr . / `. r r .)).N."... Superior r East Eroomhaid ` a Mende Ott- _. • y \ f °V ►V2871 - i H--- © Thornton ; \1/4..... 72 - Delve70 N � I Isms ♦�. i_yi ! Figure 1 III 0 2 4 6 8 10A „ " 7 j Regional Study Area / ' Miles I\ N‘4"iN L al / a)Pod Collins to Loveland Single Trade b.)Fort Conine to Loveland Double Trade \Fp55d C/ '28 CR10E Trilby Road c.)Sugarmill Road ) d.)Near Longmont Using Retaining Walls East 5th Avenue d m U a Cr, a • 1 — Surgarmtll Road Salntee eiree i. U r l cif 1' (le ERON Study Corridors a.) Fort Collins to Loveland Single Trade Figure 2 Highways b.) Fort Collins to Loveland Double Track North 1-25 FEIS Typical Sections ERO Resources Corp. ^/ Arterial Roads c.) Sugarmill Road111 1842 Clarkson Street 1110-4111— Commuter Rail - Proposed Alignment d.) Near Longmont Using Retaining Walls Denver, CO 80218 Transit Stations-Approximate Locations N (303) 830. 1188 m City Boundaries 0 5000 Preparedfor: 1-25 North Feet File:2455 Figure 2 Sedions.rrad GS Fox: (3031 830-1199 8 ( ) 1 Inch = 5 Miles Dote: November 2010 r ID . ... &et/I/1,e ".._.,.... i • / . I ..--... .—.../141 Fort Collins iI .k-Nr\.,28 r.._r— . Cache la Poudre Rive rat 1-25 lv) 40.53099'N 104.90349'W i i t el 68 . �� 4)7 t4 °rt\ t s r— (CS 1 ree • Cache La Poudre Rivet Greeley Lovelan • Big Thompson Rivet at 1.25 • �i'f� X34 40.39733'N 10499327°W 34 I - i en. 34 Big Thompson Rivet at BNSF Alignment L 4r r- � ,0 N. I40.38902"N 10507902°W 1, -,SO' Ner .Evans „_„.. L-,'Q;. plan"' 1 P�, t soUtt� \\\\ � � 6°' awec �-' 85 J 1 Little ThornpsonRveret BNSF Ahgnment Bertho d �holAps-�^ 40.28956°N 105.07384'W r_` 4'.. � _ _ Little Thompson River at 1.25 r -~� �'��. 40.30083'N 104.98032'W Ish tMch el BNSF Alignment jr -- — -_40.25388'N 105.07801"W - ' - . ' mil_ —, T Wetlands on B NSF Alignment near Divide Reservoir Wetlands on BNSF Alignment near Divide Reservoir I 40.23180`4 105.09334"W _ - f 1. 40.23643'N 105 08774°W _- _ - --- - t ' I - d Unnamed Ditch on Highway 66 and N 115th Street ' 40.20411°N 105.009136°W I :• ) Platteville Oligarchy Ditch at BNSF Alignment et ) 40.7886 3"4 105 09277'W gas�t J ta1n R`_.�� • reS �' Longr>iont Wetlands near BNSF Alignment and Sugarmill Road f SL Vrain River at I-25 40.16043"N 705.08635"W " � ,, _ 40.17515'N 104.98017"W Oligarc401591 Catch a. Hl9hway2'W 119 r 40.15911°N 105.08602'W f ' Si-Vraln River at Highway 119 40.18021°4 105.00816'W ,/ {1/4%.1 ,- ' i ' r <ee`� tee Ft., Lupton 52 eon\o \ Jepcl/ �'` / Boulder r 287 �'" 25 i 1 �f o 36 r ; eev f t �o e� c 85 . ,y Q,o / f i • 287 ,` t 27• 1 l �r 1 tt Denver r L 411O N Study Corridors Not suitable habitat Figure 3 Highways Preconstruction habitat assessment required North 1-25 FEIS Ute Ladies'- ill ERO Resources Corp. ^-/ Arterial Roads al Preconstruction survey required Tresses and Colorado Butterfly 1842 Clarkson Street Ft ComrrluterRail-ProposedAegnment Plant Habitat Assessment Denver, CO 80218 In Transit Stations-ApproldmateLocations N (303) 830-1188 inRegional Study Area 0 2.5 5 Prepoled for: 1-25 Nod Fox: (303) 830-1199 dip City' Boundaries �� Miles File:2455-Figure 3 Ihe.mxd(GS) 1 Inch = 5 Miles Dote: November 2010 r • / I f j I %, Fort Collins ; is• / _ v. i I 5 ■ 1 _ 11 68: � i "1 t 1 os( ;! 0---* , t ache La Poudreil A _ Greeley 34 Lovejan•r ,� 34 ,,...i;,......--er- i e. .‘"----„NN 2 11/4 di'I ' 40 - • -,& • E ans z o0 River •r �q. Sou1rh Foe 6 J B tho d easy 11:41.-4:085 1 /' I I i , i Platteville ! rKI a`n Rrvet Lon9 niont ' . Sao cis 1 - lil 0 - i� - I } ■, ■ ) 4 �./ T . . S / ■ i t f-- t 119/ i% - . Gee �t1 Lupton / eo,Aos _•% ae9N s Boulder1 287 v s 1 I 25 O \ Virr ■ _, If i 36 -rr- .� M Ij _ ee I Gee Qom • 85—i.e.—. ‘.... \- i - So,i co . 4/, N ...„,„ ,. \.., , /. . _.: / in i I ----._._Tm„....._.........NN_ 'i -1t Deriver I } ElioAle Study Corridors • Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapped-Found Figure 4 /\/ Highways Preble's MeadowJumping Mouse Trapped-Not Found North 1-25 FEIS Preble's ERO Resources Corp. / ," Arterial Roads Preble's Meadow Jumping Abuse Bbdc Clearance Meadow Jumping Mouse Data • 1842 Clarkson Steel •' t Commuter Rail-Proposed Alignment Denver, CO 80218 MI Transit Stations-Approximate Locations N (3031 830- 1188 L' Regional Study Area 0 2 5 5 Prepared for:1-25 North Fox: (303) 830.1199 a City Boundaries eliesMiles File:2455- Figure 2 PMIM.mxd(GS) Source: USFWS 1 Inch = 5 Miles Dote: November 2010 • NORTH I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • • • NORTH 1-25 EIS information cooperation. transportation. Technical Memorandum BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES • Prepared by: JACOBS August 2011 • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information cooperation. transportation. Table of Contents Page No. Introduction 1 Regulatory Background 1 Methodology 1 Existing Conditions 2 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 2 Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 2 Environmental Consequences 13 No-Action Alternative 13 Package A 14 Component A-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 14 Component A-H2: General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 15 Component A-H3: General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 18 Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 20 Component A-T1: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont 21 Component A-T2: Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro 27 Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA 29 • Package A: General Indirect Effects 29 Package B 30 Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 30 Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver 31 Components B-T2: BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA 31 Package B: General Indirect Effects 32 Preferred Alternative 33 Preferred Alternative Safety and General Purpose Improvements 33 Express Bus Service: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver 39 Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to North Metro 39 US 85 Commuter Bus 45 Preferred Alternative: General Indirect Effects 45 Mitigation 46 References 46 • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. List of Figures Page No. Figure 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area 3 List of Tables Page No. Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the North 1-25 Corridor 4 Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor 5 Table 3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along US 85 7 Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North 1-25 Corridor 8 Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor 11 Table 6 Component A-H1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 15 Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 16 Table 8 Component A-H3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 19 • Table 9 Component A-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 20 Table 10 Component A-T1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 21 Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 27 Table 12 Component B-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts 30 Table 13 Impacts from Queue Jumps: US 34 32 Table 14 1-25 Highway Improvements 34 Table 15 Impacts from Queue Jumps: US 34 39 Table 16 Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) 40 • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. INTRODUCTION Bicycle and pedestrian (bike/ped) facilities include sidewalks, marked and unmarked bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, and a variety of trail types. On-street bicycle routes typically include signing and striping to separate bicycles from vehicular traffic, or they may exist informally, established by consistent use by bicyclists. On-street bicycle routes are designed to promote local trips, regional commuting, and connections to off-street trails. Off-street bikeways, trails, or paths are typically physically separated from vehicular traffic through the use of barriers or by following separate routes. These off-street bikeways can provide regional links for bicyclists, pedestrian, equestrians, or other recreational users. This technical memorandum is prepared in support of the North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The analysis that follows documents bike/ped facilities within the regional study area and evaluates the potential for impacts to these resources. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Recent legal and regulatory changes reflect an increased emphasis on the planning and protection of bike/ped facilities. Related requirements include: ► 23USC 109(m) Protection of Non-motorized Transportation Traffic. States the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action • under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for non-motorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists. ► Section 5304 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Requires Departments of Transportations (DOTs)through their plans and programs to "...provide for the development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an intermodal transportation system for the State and an integral part of and intermodal transportation system for the United States". A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policy issued in 1999 entitled Design Guidance, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel:A Recommended Approach states, "...bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist." METHODOLOGY The regional study area includes numerous communities, each having varying degrees of existing and planned bike/ped facilities. To document the bike/ped facilities within the regional study area, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, public bicycle/trail maps, comprehensive plans, and a variety of planning maps were collected from local jurisdictions and state agencies. The mapping included trails, paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes. • Due to the size and complexity of the study area, sidewalks were not included as bike/ped 1 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. facilities unless specifically designated on a locally approved plan or map as being for the sole purpose of recreation. Bike/ped facilities within approximately 750 feet of proposed improvements are included in the analysis. EXISTING CONDITIONS Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Three major regional trails are located in the regional study area (Figure 3). These trails represent collaboration and planning efforts within and between municipalities and other state agencies. The American Discovery Trail (ADT) corridor is comprised of both on- and off-street facilities. This trail is part of a larger, national system that allows bicyclists a route across the United States. The Colorado Front Range Trail (CFRT) corridor is a collaborative effort that is being overseen by Colorado State Parks. The CFRT corridor has existing and proposed sections from numerous municipalities that allow for non-motorized vehicles to travel along the Front Range from New Mexico to Wyoming. The Saint Vrain Valley (SW) corridor is a portion of the CFRT; however, this is a loop trail that connects many communities within the center of the regional study area. Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Most of the trails in the study area can be categorized as local. They provide opportunities to go from one place to another but usually in the same community and not for long • distances. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are numerous existing bike/ped facilities within the regional study area. Table 1, Comments received Table 2 and Table 3 include the facilities that are within approximately 750 feet on each side of the corridors identified for improvements or station and maintenance facility locations. On-street facilities represent sidewalks identified by locally approved plans as being solely for recreation. Bike lanes are designated bike lanes located within the roadway edge of pavement. For the purposes of this study, some facilities were provided names that may differ from what they are referred to by others. Some facilities may have been added or changed since data collection occurred. • 2 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Figure 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Regional Study Area L LEGEND Al Alternative Corridors _ "/ Highways Wellington ' I � [85j 7N/ Arterial Roads \� i . I _ Regional Study Area �1 r — . s ) pie,;P �. City Boundaries A/ I i.'J •\ a Cities & Towns in Project Area ' ��Fo ilCouins s Proposed or Envisioned Facility' t :-�-s "ANA' km • 14 ,1 25T 1 Existing Facility" \ I 1 t ��h a .' -.1_u Tmnath t, American Discovery Trail (ADT) I I ' ;szas.� ,� Silrerair,- Eaton. ,I Colorado Front Range Trail j r ► `� I L. / tj _"` _�.,rwmdscr St. Vrain Valley Trail t I .,\�rAr Weenie \--3:99 Proposed US 36 Alignment Trail j t; ol�'ore River.Trail,' . ! • Excluding pedestrian-only sidewalks I � 11 Greeley ti; 34 . t - �� 1 I; . ; �.. k- T.20th rnt ` .- . . ‘w, Garden,Cit 5j - ��" Loveland34 � '�_ t - . —n_ Evans;' ' �A .. , 1 ? fa Salle. %% I,, I C3nIPmn ..� Johnstown / I-N, - - -- - 85 i /-_...Brrthnod .- - l • 0 Milliken /• 4.I _ , /% I I 1 I I \ 11III i Mead I r jl-j - - I - t ` •-• idituvot % 6 i v:., I I f t I O r % _r` ,-` I 1 g J ---, Vollmar II '% - / ' cu Fuestone I • 1 - I � �l , 1 i ��" Niwut �287 'v. nrtdu{tton \T - - ' " 15:1-/- : ? ::1 /� "� ' I ii� . 1' wattentterg i -.n.- 1 Boulder ' 1 . -5 • - I) - r Laftiv >. 1 { 1 Louisvdley g �..� sir / ,� !.- 'Brighton�. t:a...,f �Y E 470 l ,� $iQIn1i01 rl . I ire I i • •�.` �:i.1� Broomt!efd - J. .. ..IPk' yHenderson /`.`,D\ 01 ':,, L . .fir 1 !'c P , r \, .l!36 �1_r�,; � -- r �`�e, • `w� 287 Thornton q % / 1: sere—rCre s) � Denverealt S.ac.... IF-1 I- T4!" two 1 .V •�J 0 2 4 6 8 10 A 11 � .� I♦ .a� �� -�� Its - Iii Miles North / ,`� a_�, 1 yj7r= . 1 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/ Orientation to 1-25 Richards Lake Road On-street facility Larimer County Perpendicular along Richards Lake Road Frontage Road (Richards Parallel between Richards Lake Road to Mountain On-street facility Larimer County Lake Road and Mountain Vista Drive) Vista Drive Mountain Vista Drive On-street facility City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Mountain Vista Drive Vine Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Vine Drive Frontage Road (Mountain Parallel east of 1-25 Vista Drive to Mulberry On-street facility City of Fort Collins between Mountain Vista Street) Drive and Mulberry Street Parallel west of 1-25 Southeast Frontage Road On-street facility City of Fort Collins between Prospect Street and Mulberry Street Harmony Road(SH 68) Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Harmony Road Highway 392 West On-street Larimer County Perpendicular along (32 Road) improvement Highway 392 30 Road Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along CR 30 • Crossroads (26 Road) Lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along improvement Crossroads Boulevard Parallel east of 1-25 just Clydesdale On-street facility City of Loveland south of Crossroads Boulevard McWhinney Boulevard On-street facility City of Loveland Perpendicular just north of Highway 34 Highway 34 Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along Highway 34 Hillsborough Ditch Trail Off-street facility Towns of Johnstown Perpendicular just north of and Milliken Highway 402 SH 66 On-street facility Weld County Perpendicular along SH 66 Colorado Front Range Trail Underpass Colorado State Parks Perpendicular just north of (Saint Vrain Trail) Highway 119 Highway 52 On-street facility Town of Frederick Perpendicular along Highway 52 Big Dry Creek Underpass Cities of Thornton Parallel just north of and Westminster 128th Avenue 128th Avenue On-street facility City of Thornton Perpendicular along 128th Avenue 120th Transit Station Underpass City of Northglenn Perpendicular just south of 120th Avenue Community Center Drive On-street facility City of Westminster Parallel just south of 120th Avenue Farmers Highline Canal Off-street facility City of Westminster Parallel just south of Trail 120th Avenue i 4 Final ES NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information, cooperation. transportation. Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/AgencyLocation/ p Orientation to 1-25 Kennedy Street On-street facility City of Northglenn Perpendicular just north of 104th Avenue Lincoln Street On-street facility City of Northglenn Parallel east of 1-25 just (Northglenn Drive) north of 104th Avenue 104th Avenue On-street facility City of Northglenn Perpendicular along 104th Avenue Thornton Parkway On-street facility City of Thornton Parallel along Thornton Parkway Coronado Parkway Trail Off-street facility City of Thornton Parallel around 88th Avenue 88th Avenue On-street facility City of Federal Perpendicular along Heights 88th Avenue Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor Location/Orientation • Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency to US 287/BNSF Corridor Howes Street Bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel along Howes Street LaPorte Avenue Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along LaPorte Avenue Mason Street(Cherry Bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel along Street to Laurel Street) Mason Street Olive Street Bike route City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Olive Street Parallel just north of East Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins University Avenue on the CSU Campus Parallel just north of West Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins University Avenue on the CSU Campus University Avenue Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along University Avenue Perpendicular just CSU Campus Underpass City of Fort Collins east of University Avenue Pitkin Street Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Pitkin Street Lake Street Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Lake Street Perpendicular just Spring Creek Trail Underpass and trail City of Fort Collins south of Prospect Street • 5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information cooperation transportation. Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor Location/Orientation Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency to US 287/BNSF Corridor Drake Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Drake Road West Harvard Street Bike route City of Fort Collins Perpendicular just south of Drake Road Swallow Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Swallow Road Manhattan Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel just south of Horsetooth Road Horsetooth Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Horsetooth Road Mason Street Parallel along (Horsetooth Road to Bike lane City of Fort Collins Mason Street Harmony Road) Perpendicular just Boardwalk Drive Bike lane City of Fort Collins south of Horsetooth Road Perpendicular just Troutman Parkway Bike route City of Fort Collins north of Harmony Road Harmony Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Harmony Road Perpendicular just Fossil Creek Trail Off-street facility City of Fort Collins south of Harmony Road Trilby Road Bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Trilby Road(US 34) Shield Street(parallel to Parallel along Shields railroad) Bike lane City of Fort Collins Street(turns into Taft Avenue) 37th Street Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along 37th Street 29th Street Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along 29th Street Lake Drive (parallel to Parallel along the railroad) Bike route City of Loveland east side of Lake Loveland Garfield Avenue Bike route City of Loveland Parallel just east of (parallel to railroad) Lake Loveland US 34 Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along US 34 US 287 Bike route City of Loveland Parallel along US 287 1st Street Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along 1st Street Big Thompson River Underpass and trail City of Loveland, Perpendicular just Colorado State Parks south of 1st Street 6 Final EIS NORTH I-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along the US 287/BNSF Corridor Location/Orientation Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency to US 287/BNSF Corridor Roosevelt Avenue Bike lane City of Loveland Parallel just south of 14th Street 14th Southwest Street Bike lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along 14th Street Perpendicular just Welch Avenue On-street facility Town of Berthoud south of Mountain Avenue 21st Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont Perpendicular just south of Highway 66 Mountain View Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont Perpendicular along Mountain Avenue Longs Peak Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont southofPerpendicular h A just south of 9th Avenue 4th Avenue On-street facility City of Longmont Perpendicular just north of 3rd Avenue Collyer Street On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel just east of US 287 Main Street On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel along . Main Street Perpendicular west of Alpine Street On-street facility City of Longmont Pace Street north of 3rd Avenue Table 3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along US 85 Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/ Orientation to US 85 Rogers Road On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel just south of 3rd Avenue Perpendicular just east 119th Street On-street facility City of Longmont of the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Ken Pratt Boulevard SH 119 On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel along SH 119 Ken Pratt On-street facility City of Longmont Parallel along Ken Pratt Boulevard Boulevard Parallel along Highway 85 Existing on-street facility City of Evans Highway 85 around the City of Evans American Existing on-street facility City of Evans Parallel generally follows Discovery Trail Highway 85 Parallel along US 85 Existing on-street facility Town of Platteville Highway 85 around the Town of Platteville • 7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Along US 85 Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/ Orientation to US 85 SH 66 Existing on-street facility Town of Platteville Perpendicular along SH 66 Parallel just south of Denver Avenue Existing on-street facility City of Fort Lupton SH 66 along Denver Avenue Colorado Front Existing on-street facility City of Fort Lupton Parallel to the east of US Range Trail 85 Potential Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are numerous proposed bike/ped facilities in the regional study area. Table 4 and Table 5 include the potential future bicycle facilities that are within 750 feet of the corridor identified for the alignments. In addition to the proposed facilities included in the tables, there is one potential future facility near the US 85 station areas: Evans has proposed an on-street facility along 31st Street. Figure 1 graphically shows the bike and pedestrian facilities with the regional facilities highlighted. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/ Location/ • Agency Orientation to I-25 Box Elder Creek Proposed off-street Town of Wellington Parallel just south of facility Wellington Douglas Road Proposed on-street Larimer County Perpendicular just south of facility Wellington along CR 54 Mountain Vista Drive Proposed on-street City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along facility Mountain Vista Drive Vine Drive Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along improvements Vine Drive Frontage Road Proposed on-street Parallel east of 1-25 (Mountain Vista Drive to facility City of Fort Collins between Mountain Visa Mulberry Street) Drive and Mulberry Street Weicker Drive Proposed on-street City of Fort Collins Perpendicular just north of facility Mulberry Street Mulberry Street(SH 14) Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along improvements Mulberry Street Frontage Road Proposed bike lane Parallel west of 1-25 (Prospect Street to Proposed ove d City of Fort Collins between Prospect Street impMulberry Street) and Mulberry Street Southeast Frontage Proposed on-street Parallel west of I-25 Road facility City of Fort Collins between Prospect Street and Mulberry Street Timnath Bike Route Proposed on-street Town of Timnath Parallel east of 1-25 south facility of Prospect Street Baker Lake Trail Proposed off-street City of Fort Collins Parallel east of I-25 around facility Mulberry Street • 8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/ Location/ Agency Orientation to 1-25 Prospect Road Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along improvements Prospect Street City of Fort Collins, Poudre River Trail Proposed trail Colorado State Parallel west of 1-25 south improvements Parks, Town of of Prospect Street Timnath Box Elder Ditch Proposed trail City of Fort Collins Parallel east of 1-25 south of Harmony Road Frontage Road Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel east of 1-25 south (36 Road to 38 Road) improvements of Harmony Road 36 Road Proposed on-street City of Fort Collins, Perpendicular along improvements Town of Timnath Kechter Road (US 36) Proposed off-street Parallel east of 1-25 just Timnath#1 facility Town of Timnath south of Kechter Road (US 36) Colorado Front Range Proposed trail Larimer County, Parallel west of 1-25 north Trail improvement Colorado State of Highway 32 Parks Frontage Road (SH 392 Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Parallel west of 1-25 south West to 36 Road) improvements of Kechter Road (US 36) • SH 392 West(32 Road) Proposed on-street Perpendicular along improvements Larimer County SH 392 Crossroads (26 Road) Proposed lane City of Loveland Perpendicular along improvements Crossroads Boulevard Loveland#1 Proposed off-street City of Loveland Parallel east of 1-25 south facility of Crossroads Boulevard Loveland and Greeley Proposed underpass City of Loveland, Perpendicular north of US Canal and trail Town of Johnstown 34 20E Proposed lane City of Loveland Perpendicular south of US improvements 34 Big Thompson River Proposed path City of Loveland, Perpendicular south of US Trail improvement Town of Johnstown 34 402/18 Proposed lane Towns of Johnstown Perpendicular along improvements and Milliken SH 402 Ditch/Creek Proposed trail Towns of Johnstown Parallel south of SH 402 (South of 402/18) improvement and Milliken Johnstown#1 Proposed on-street Towns of Johnstown Parallel east of 1-25 just facility and Milliken north of SH 56 46 Road (SH 60) Proposed on-street Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular along improvement Johnstown, Milliken 46 Road SH 56 Proposed on-street Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular along SH 56 improvement Milliken,Johnstown Little Thompson River Proposed trail Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular just south of improvement Milliken,Johnstown SH 56 Colorado Front Range Proposed trail Colorado State Perpendicular just north of Trail (Saint Vrain Trail) improvement Parks SH 119 • 9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North I-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/ Location/ Agency Orientation to 1-25 Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel approximately one facility mile east of 1-25 north of SH 56 Lower Boulder Ditch Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel west of 1-25 just Trail(West) facility north of SH 52 Lower Boulder Ditch Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel east of 1-25 just Trail (East) facility north of SH 52 CR 15 Proposed trail Town of Frederick Perpendicular just north of improvement SH 52 Erie#2 Proposed trail Town of Erie Parallel west of 1-25 just south of SH 52 Dacono#2 Proposed off-street City of Dacono Parallel east of 1-25 just facility south of SH 52 Union Pacific railroad Proposed off-street Cities of Broomfield, Perpendicular just north of alignment facility Dacono, Thornton Leon A Wurl Parkway Stanly Ditch Proposed off-street Cities of Broomfield, Parallel just south of facility Dacono,Thornton Leon A Wurl Parkway Dacono#3 Proposed off-street Cities of Dacono Perpendicular east of 1-25 facility and Broomfield just south of Leon A Wuri Parkway Proposed off-street Perpendicular just north of • Broomfield Trail City of Broomfield City SH 7 Regional Trail 5 Proposed off-street City of Broomfield Perpendicular just north of facility SH 7 Leon Wurl Parkway Proposed on-street Town of Erie, City of Perpendicular along (Saint Vrain Legacy facility Dacono Leon A Wurl Parkway Trail) SH 7 Proposed on-street City of Thornton Parallel east of 1-25 along facility SH 7 Bull Ditch Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel east of 1-25 just facility south of SH 7 160th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Thornton Perpendicular along facility 160th Avenue Thornton#1 Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel just north of E-470 facility E-470 Proposed off-street City and County of Perpendicular along E-470 facility Broomfield Westminster#1 Proposed trail City of Westminster Perpendicular west of 1-25 just north of 144th avenue Westminster#2 Proposed off-street City of Westminster Parallel east oft-25 just facility north of 128th Avenue Big Dry Creek Existing trail Cities of Thornton Parallel just north of and Westminster 128th Avenue Westminster#3 Proposed trail City of Westminster Parallel around 128th Avenue Thornton#2 Proposed trail City of Thornton Perpendicular north of 128th Avenue • 10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS 0 Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 4 Potential Future Facilities Along the North 1-25 Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/ Location/ Agency Orientation to 1-25 120th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Westminster Perpendicular along facility 120th Avenue Tuck Lateral Proposed off-street Cities of Thornton Parallel west of 1-25 south facility and Northglenn of 104th Avenue Civic Center Park Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel east of 1-25 just facility north of Thornton Parkway Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency LocationlOrienta rr to US 287/BNSF Corridor Mountain Avenue Proposed bike lane City of Fort Collins Perpendicular along Mountain Avenue Mason Street Proposed off-street multi- Parallel along (Laurel Street to use path City of Fort Collins Mason Street Fossil Creek Drive) Fossil Creek Drive Proposed on-and off- City of Fort Collins Perpendicular just south street facility of Harmony Road III Midway Drive to Perpendicular just north Skyway Drive Proposed multi-use path City of Fort Collins of Trilby Road Railroad alignment Parallel east of 1-25 just (57th Street and Planned path City of Loveland north of Trilby Road northward) 57th Street Planned trail City of Loveland Perpendicular along 57th Street Perpendicular just north 7th Street Proposed bike route City of Loveland of 1st Street Heron Lakes Trail Proposed bike trail Town of Berthoud Perpendicular just north of Berthoud Reservoir Berthoud Reservoir Proposed bike trail Town of Berthoud Perpendicular just north of Berthoud Reservoir 49th Street(west of Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Parallel just east of railroad) Sunnyslope Reservoir Railroad alignment Parallel just north of (Little Thompson to Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud CR 6C Heron Lakes) CR E-10 Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Perpendicular just south of Berthoud Reservoir US 287 bypass Proposed on-street Town of Berthoud Parallel just north of facility SH 56 Bunyan Avenue Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Perpendicular just north of SH 56 Proposed on-street Perpendicular along Mountain Avenue facility Town of Berthoud Mountain Avenue (SH 56) • 11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency Location/Orientation to US 287/BNSF Corridor Neilson Trail Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Perpendicular just south of SH 56 First Street Proposed major bike trail Town of Berthoud Parallel just south of (at railroad) SH 56 Little Thompson Proposed major bike trail Towns of Berthoud, Perpendicular just south River Johnstown, Milliken of SH 56 Vermillion Road Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility Vermillion Road Park Ridge Avenue Proposed on-street Perpendicular just north (proposed road facility City of Longmont of SH 66 extension) SH 66 Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility SH 66 Railroad alignment Proposed off-street Parallel just south of (21st Avenue to facility City of Longmont SH 66 Highway 66) Lanyon Park Trail Proposed off-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 66 17th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility 17th Avenue Proposed on-street Perpendicular just south III facility 11th Avenue ew City of Longmont of Mountain View Avenue 9th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility 9th Avenue Collyer Street Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just east of facility US 287 Coffman Street Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just west of facility US 287 2nd Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 119 1st Avenue Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 119 Martin Street Trail Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular just east facility of US 287 Sugar Mill Road Proposed on-street City of Longmont Parallel just south of facility SH 119 County Line Road Proposed on-street City of Longmont Perpendicular along facility County Line Road Colorado Front Perpendicular just east Range Trail Proposed trail Colorado State Parks of 1-25 and SH 119 (Saint Vrain Trail) Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street Town of Frederick Parallel just north of facility SH 52 Cottonwood Proposed off-street Towns of Frederick Parallel just south of Extension Ditch facility and Erie SH 52 Community Ditch Proposed off-street Town of Erie Parallel just south of facility SH 52 • 12 Final EIS NORTH I25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5 Potential Future Facilities Along the Highway 287/BNSF Corridor Name/Reference Description Municipality/Agency LocationlOrienta rr to US 287/BNSF Corridor SH 52 Proposed on-street Towns of Erie and Perpendicular along (Mineral Road) facility Frederick SH 52 Proposed off-street Parallel just east of the Erie#1 facility Town of Erie intersection of 1-25 and CR 10 Proposed off-street Parallel just east of the Erie#2 facility Town of Erie intersection of 1-25 and CR 10 Town of Erie, Cities Parallel along the Union Pacific Proposed off-street of Dacono and proposed commuter rail Railroad facility alignment just north of Broomfield Leon A Wurl Parkway Dacono#1 Proposed off-street City of Dacono Perpendicular just north facility of Leon A Wurl Parkway Town of Erie, Cities Perpendicular just north Stanly Ditch Proposed trail of Dacono and Broomfield of Leon A Wurl Parkway Leon A Wurl Proposed on-street Town of Erie, City of Perpendicular along Parkway(Saint Vrain facility Dacono Leon A Wurl Parkway Legacy Trail) • Proposed off-street Perpendicular just south Dacono#2 City of Dacono facility of Leon A Wurl Parkway Little Dry Creek Proposed off-street City of Dacono Perpendicular just south facility of Leon A Wurl Parkway Bull Ditch Proposed off-street Cities of Dacono and Parallel just south of facility Broomfield SH 7 168th Avenue Proposed on-street City of Thornton Perpendicular along facility 168th Avenue Big Dry Creek Ditch Proposed off-street Cities of Thornton Perpendicular just north facility and Westminster of SH 7 SH 7 Proposed on-street City of Thornton Perpendicular along facility SH 7 German Ditch Proposed off-street City of Thornton Parallel around SH 7 facility ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bike/ped facilities along the 1-25 corridor. However, programmed safety improvements to interchanges and standard maintenance to existing structures may result in minor effects. The No-Action Alternative includes several projects that would provide traffic signals at existing interchange areas to improve safety. This would improve circulation to the • following existing and proposed bike/ped facilities: 13 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information cooperation. transportation. ► Mountain Vista Drive ► Prospect Street ► Crossroads Boulevard ► 402/18 ► SH 60 ► SH 56 ► WCR 34 Also, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) plans to rehabilitate several existing structures along 1-25, which could result in temporary closure or nuisance impacts (e.g., increased construction noise)to several bike/ped facilities during construction. SH 52 and SH 66 are existing bike/ped facilities near this proposed structure work. Proposed facilities that could be affected (if they exist during time of construction) include: Lower Boulder Ditch Trail (West); Lower Boulder Ditch Trail (East); and Colorado Front Range Trail (St Vrain Trail). Under the No-Action Alternative, traffic congestion would worsen, and increased vehicle emissions would continue to deteriorate regional air quality. This could affect bike/ped users, particularly near heavily-used roadways. Package A Package A includes construction of additional general purpose lanes on 1-25, and the implementation of commuter rail and bus service (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS). Table 6 • through Table 10 present the consequences of each Package A component to the bike/ped facilities previously described. The following sections summarize these impacts. Component A-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 14 Safety improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would directly and indirectly impact bike/ped facilities (see Table 6). Overall, these improvements would facilitate future bike/ped travel. Component A-H1 would involve reconstruction of two roads at their 1-25 crossings where bike/ped facilities are planned—Mountain Vista Drive and Vine Drive. The reconstructed roadways would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders to accommodate bicycle travel. This component also would require realignment of two 1-25 frontage roads where bike/ped facilities are planned. The reconstructed frontage roads would include 10-foot shoulders to accommodate bicycle use. • 14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 6 Component A-HI.: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Box Elder Creek Proposed off-street Extending box culvert *Temporary Closure facility Douglas Road Proposed on-street Trail would go under 1-25 No impact facility Richards Lake Proposed bridge would Road On-street facility include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial shoulders. Improvements would Frontage Road require some realignment (Richards Lake Proposed on-street of road where facility is Temporary Closure Road to Mountain facility proposed. Proposed Direct—Beneficial Vista Drive) frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders. Construction impacts. Mountain Vista Proposed on-street Proposed bridge would Drive facility include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial shoulders Proposed bike lane Proposed bridge would Vine Drive improvements include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial • shoulders Improvemen ts would Frontage Road require realignment of (Mountain Vista Proposed on-street road where facility is Temporary Closure proposed south of Vine Drive to facility Drive. Proposed frontage Direct—Beneficial Mulberry St.) road would include 10-foot shoulders Interior roads proposed to Proposed on-street improve circulation in NW Indirect—Potentially Weicker Drive facility quadrant of interchange. Beneficial Roads would include 110-foot shoulders. *It is assumed that any proposed trail that would cross 1-25 at an existing culvert location would use that culvert,the widening of that culvert,or proposed culvert as an I-25 underpass. Component A-H2: General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 Component A-H2 would add one general purpose lane to northbound and southbound 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60. Several existing bike/ped facilities would experience temporary impacts during construction, including possible temporary closure (see Table 7). • 15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. This component includes a number of new structures over 1-25. These new highway bridges would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders. A modified bridge over 1-25 at Harmony Road would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders which would connect to and extend the existing bike/ped facility that exists to the west of 1-25. Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Interchange improvements Mulberry Street Proposed bike lane would improve bike/ped (SH 14) improvements circulation since proposed Direct—Beneficial trail would be grade- separated over SH 14 Interior roads proposed to Frontage Road Proposed bike lane improve circulation in SW (Mulberry Street to improvements quadrant of interchange. Indirect—Beneficial Prospect Street) Roads would include 10-foot shoulders. Realignment of proposed Southeast Proposed on-street bike/ped facility. Proposed Temporary Closure Frontage Road facility frontage road would include Direct- 10-foot shoulders. Potentially Beneficial Construction impacts. Improvements would require • some realignment of road Timnath Bike Proposed on-street where facility is proposed. Temporary Closure Route facility Proposed frontage road Direct—Beneficial would include 10-foot shoulders No crossing of I-25 currently. Baker Lake Trail Proposed off-street Highway widening would No Impact facility increase length of any future structure Proposed bike lane Proposed bridge over 1-25 Prospect Road improvements would include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial shoulders Proposed structures over Proposed trail Cache La Poudre and over Poudre River Trail mprovements Harmony would provide Direct—Beneficial igreater clearance for future bike/ped Harmony Road Proposed bridge over I-25 Harmony 68) Bike lane would include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial (SHbike lanes Proposed frontage road south Direct—Potentially Box Elder Ditch Proposed trail of LCR 40 would cross Adverse proposed trail. Improvements would require Frontage Road (36 Proposed bike lane realignment of road where Temporary Closure Road to 38 Road) improvements facility is proposed. Proposed Direct—Beneficial frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders • 16 Final EIS NORTH I-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed on-street Proposed bridge over 1-25 36 Road would include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial improvements shoulders Proposed culvert would Timnath#1 Proposed off-street provide potential 1-25 crossing Direct—Potentially facility where one does not exist. Beneficial LCR 40 to 36—no impact, CR Colorado Front Proposed trail 36 to SH 392—improvements No impact—LCR 40 to Range Trail improvement would require realignment of 36,Temporary Closure— road where facility is CR 36 to SH 392 proposed. Improvements would require Frontage Road realignment of road where (SH 392 to 36 Proposed bike lane facility is proposed. Proposed Temporary Closure Road) improvements Direct—Beneficial road would include 10-foot shoulders SH 392 West(32 On-street Interchange improvements Road) -str ement will be constructed as part of No impact the No Action Alternative. Highway improvements would have temporary impacts to • existing facility during 30 Road Bike lane construction; Proposed Temporary interior road west of 1-25 would include 10-foot shoulder; provide connectivity to existing trail. Highway improvements would have temporary impacts to existing facility during Crossroads (26 construction; Proposed Temporary Adverse; Road) Lane improvement interior road west of 1-25 Direct—Beneficial would include 10-foot shoulder; provide connectivity to existing trail. Clydesdale On-street facility Existing trail to remain No impact Realignment of proposed Loveland#1 Proposed off-street facility due to hwy widening Temporary Closure facility and reconfiguration of Direct—Beneficial interchange (1-25&Hwy 34) Proposed culvert would Loveland and Proposed underpass increase opening for potential Indirect—Potentially Greeley Canal and trail Beneficial 1-25 crossing. McWhinney 1-25 widening would impact Boulevard On-street facility small portion of existing Temporary Closure bike/ped facility. US 34 Bike lane Temporary impacts to existing Temporary Closure facility during construction • 17 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 7 Component A-H2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed lane Proposed bridge over 1-25 20E improvements would include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial shoulders Big Thompson Proposed path Proposed bridge would River Trailimprovement provide greater clearance for Direct—Beneficial future bike/ped Hillsborough Ditch Off-street facility Temporary impacts to existing Temporary Closure Trail facility during construction Proposed bridge over 1-25 402/18 Proposed lane would include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial improvements shoulders- Carpool lot could Indirect—Adverse increase traffic Ditch/Creek Proposed trail Proposed culvert would Indirect—Potentially (South of 402/18) improvement increase opening for potential Beneficial 1-25 crossing. As with Component A-H1, the highway widening associated with this component would require realigning several frontage roads along 1-25. The new frontage roads would include 10-foot shoulders. New drainage structures are proposed in several locations. Two proposed culverts would • be larger than the existing ones, which could provide an opportunity and potential 1-25 crossing for planned bike/ped facilities. One culvert would be constructed where one does not currently exist. Several new bridges over waterways would provide adequate area underneath to accommodate planned future trails. Component A-H3: General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 Component A-H3 would add one general purpose lane to northbound and southbound 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470. As shown in Table 8, these improvements would not adversely affect existing bike/ped facilities. Of the estimated 23 proposed facilities in this area, 15 would not be affected by this component. Two proposed facilities are located along frontage roads that would need to be realigned; the reconstructed frontage roads will include 10-foot shoulders. Two reconstructed roads under and over 1-25 would accommodate future bike/ped use. • 18 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8 Component A-H3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Realignment of road where Johnstown #1 Proposed on-street facility is proposed. Proposed Temporary Closure facility frontage road would include Direct—Beneficial 10-foot shoulders Proposed on-street Improvements to SH 60 46 Road (SH 60) improvement under 1-25 would include Direct—Beneficial sidewalk and bike lanes Realignment of road where SH 56 Proposed on-street facility is proposed. Proposed Temporary Closure improvement frontage road would include Direct—Beneficial 10-foot shoulders Proposed bridge would Little Thompson Proposed trail provide greater clearance for Direct—Potentially River improvement Beneficial future bike/ped SH 66 Proposed on-street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility Colorado Front Proposed trail Range Trail (Saint improvement Existing underpass to remain No Impact Vrain Trail) Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street Outside of Impact Area No Impact • facility Lower Boulder Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No impact Ditch Trail (West) facility Lower Boulder Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No Impact Ditch Trail (East) facility CR 15 Proposed trail Trail connection to Lower No Impact improvement Boulder Ditch SH 52 On-street facility Improved facility would Direct-Beneficial include new sidewalk Erie#2 Proposed trail Outside of Impact Area No Impact Dacono#2 Proposed off-street Proposed trail terminates at *No Impact facility existing culvert Union Pacific Proposed off-street Trail would cross 1-25 at No Impact railroad alignment facility existing underpass Stanley Ditch Trail Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No Impact facility Dacono#3 Proposed off-street Proposed trail terminates at No Impact facility existing frontage road Broomfield Trail Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain *No Impact facility Proposed culvert would Regional Trail 5 Proposed off-street provide potential 1-25 Direct—Potentially facility crossing where one does not Beneficial exist. Leon Wurl Proposed on-street Proposed access road to park Parkway(Saint facility and ride would cross Indirect-Adverse Vrain Legacy Trail) proposed trail • 19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 8 Component A-H3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed on-street Improvements to SH 7 would SH 7 facility include sidewalk and bike Direct—Beneficial lane Proposed off-street Interchange modifications Bull Ditch Trail facility might require some Temporary Closure realignment of proposed trail 160th Avenue Proposed on street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility Thornton#1 Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility E-470 Proposed off-street Existing structure to remain No Impact facility Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 Component A-H4 would involve upgrading structures on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36. As shown in Table 9, these upgrades should not affect any existing or proposed bike/ped facilities in this area, except for the existing trail at Big Dry Creek which may require temporary closure during construction. Table 9 Component A-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts • Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Westminster#1 Proposed trail Outside of Impact area No Impact Westminster#2 Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Bi Dry Creek Proposed off-street Existing underpass to be g facility lengthened Temporary Closure Westminster#3 Proposed trail Trail connection to Big Dry No Impact Creek Thornton#2 Proposed trail Existing underpass to remain No Impact (connection to Big Dry Creek) 1281h Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact 120`"Avenue Proposed on street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility 120th Transit Underpass Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Station lengthened Community Center On-street facility Existing underpass to remain No Impact Drive Farmers Highline Off-street facility Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Canal Trail lengthened Kennedy Street On-street facility Existing overpass to be No Impact replaced Lincoln Street On-street facility Outside of Impact area No Impact (Northglenn Drive) 104th Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact • 20 Final EIS NORTH I-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 9 Component A-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Tuck Lateral Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Civic Center Park Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Thornton Parkway On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact Coronado Off-street facility Existing underpass be No Impact Parkway Trail replaced 88th Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact Clear Creek Trail Off-street facility Existing underpass to remain No Impact "it is assumed that any proposed trail that would cross I-25 at an existing culvert location would use that culvert,the widening of that culvert,or proposed culvert as an I-25 underpass. Component A-T1: Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to Longmont This component would involve providing a commuter rail line and facilities along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) alignment from Fort Collins to Longmont. Component A-T1 is not expected to impact 14 of the 44 existing bike/ped facilities within this portion of the BNSF corridor. Approximately 22 existing facilities currently cross the BNSF railroad tracks, and this component would add an additional track these facilities would need to • cross. Bike/ped traffic at these at-grade crossings currently must wait for freight trails using the BNSF line to pass. The proposed commuter trains would result in similar delays to bike/ped travel, although these trains generally would be shorter than the freight trains. The at-grade facilities would be temporarily impacted during construction. Similarly, two existing trails that cross under the BNSF (Spring Creek and Big Thompson River) may require temporary closure during construction, but would not experience long-term impacts. Component A-T1 is not anticipated to impact 5 of the 25 proposed bike/ped facilities within this portion of the BNSF corridor (see Table 10). This component would add an additional rail track that would have to be crossed by 16 proposed facilities if they are constructed at- grade. Table 10 Component A-T1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Howes Street Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact LaPorte Avenue Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Mason Street Commuter rail station, (Cherry Street to Bike lane additional rail track along Direct Laurel Street) corridor Mountain Avenue Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Direct facility at existing crossing Olive Street Bike route One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing • 21 Final EIS NORTH 1-2 5 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities III information. cooperation. transportation. Table 10 Component A-Tl: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Mason Street (Laurel Street to Existing/proposed off- Additional rail track along Direct Fossil Creek street multi-use path corridor Drive) East Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact West Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact CSU Campus Underpass Existing underpass to remain No Impact Pitkin Street Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Lake Street Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Proposed bridge construction Spring Creek Trail Underpass and trail may require temporary Temporary Closure closure of trail Drake Road Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing West Harvard Bike route One additional railroad track Direct Street at existing crossing Swallow Road Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing University Avenue Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing • Manhattan Drive Bike lane No Impact Horsetooth Road Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Mason Street Additional rail track along (Horsetooth Road Bike lane corridor Direct to Harmony Road) Boardwalk Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact Troutman Parkway Bike route One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Harmony Road Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Fossil Creek Drive Proposed on-and off- One additional railroad track Direct street facility at crossing Fossil Creek Trail Off-street facility Outside of Impact Area No Impact Midway Drive to Proposed multi-use One additional railroad track Direct Skyway Drive path at existing crossing Trilby Road Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Shields Street (parallel to Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact railroad) Railroad alignment (57th Street and Planned path Outside of Impact Area No Impact northward) 57th Street Planned trail One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing • 22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Table 10 Component A-T1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts 37th Street Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing 29`h Street Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Lake Drive (parallel to Bike route Outside of Impact Area No Impact railroad) Garfield Avenue One additional railroad track (parallel to Bike route Direct railroad) at existing crossing US 34 Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing 71h Street Proposed bike route One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing US 287 Bike route Outside of Impact Area No Impact 15`Street Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Big Thompson Proposed bridge construction River Underpass and trail may require temporary Temporary Closure closure of trail Roosevelt Avenue Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact • 14th Southwest Bike lane One additional railroad track Direct Street at existing crossing Connection to railroad Heron Lakes Trail Proposed bike trail alignment(Little Thompson to No Impact Heron Lakes)) Berthoud Connection to railroad Reservoir Proposed bike trail alignment(Little Thompson to No Impact Heron Lakes)) 49'h Street(west of Proposed major bike One additional railroad track Direct railroad) trail at existing crossing Railroad alignment Proposed trail follows (Little Thompson Proposed major bike commuter rail alignment; Direct to Heron Lakes) trail proposed trail may need to be realigned CR E-10 Proposed major bike One additional railroad track Direct trail at existing crossing US 287 Bypass Proposed on-street Outside of Impact Area No Impact facility Bunyan Avenue Proposed major bike One additional railroad track Direct trail at existing crossing Mountain Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Welch Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Proposed major bike Connection to railroad Neilson Trail trail alignment(Little Thompson to No Impact Heron Lakes)) • 23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 10 Component A-T1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts First Street(at Proposed major bike One additional railroad track Direct railroad) trail at existing crossing Proposed bridge would Little Thompson Proposed major bike provide greater clearance for Temporary Closure River trail future trail; construction may Direct—Beneficial require temporary closure of trail Vermillion Road Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Direct facility at existing crossing Park Ridge Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Avenue (proposed facility at existing crossing Direct road extension) Highway 66 Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Direct facility at existing crossing Railroad alignment Proposed trail follows (21st Avenue to SH Proposed off-street commuter rail alignment; No Impact 66) facility proposed trail will need to be realigned 21st Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Lanyon Park Trail Proposed off-street Construction could require Temporary Closure facility trail closure. • 17th Avenue Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Direct facility at existing crossing Mountain View On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct Avenue at existing crossing 11`h Avenue Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Direct facility at existing crossing 9th Avenue Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Direct facility at existing crossing Longs Peak On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct Avenue at existing crossing 4th Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Collyer Street On-street facility Outside of Impact Area No Impact Main Street On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Coffman Street Proposed on-street One additional railroad track Direct facility at existing crossing 2nd Avenue Proposed on street Outside of Impact Area No Impact facility Proposed trail follows 1St Avenue Proposed on-street commuter rail alignment; Direct facility proposed trail will need to be realigned Proposed on-street One additional railroad Martin Street Trail facility crossing, one additional track Direct at existing crossing Alpine Street On-street facility To the north of rail line No Impact Ill 24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Table 10 Component A-Tl: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Rogers Road On-street facility To the north of rail line No Impact 119th Street On-street facility One additional railroad track Direct at existing crossing Sugar Mill Road Proposed on-street Outside of Impact area No impact facility SH 119 On-street facility Commuter rail would span No Impact existing trail Ken Pratt On-street facility Outside of Impact area No Impact Boulevard County Line Road Proposed on-street Additional crossing (2 tracks) Direct facility Proposed bridge would Colorado Front accommodate future Temporary Closure Range Trail (St. Proposed trail bike/ped; construction may Direct—Beneficial Vrain Trail) require temporary closure of trail Proposed bridge would Proposed off-street accommodate future Temporary Closure Idaho Creek Trail facility bike/ped; construction may Direct—Beneficial require temporary closure of trail • Cottonwood Proposed off-street Additional crossing(2 tracks) Direct Extension Ditch facility Community Ditch Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility SH 52(Mineral Proposed on-street Commuter rail would span No Impact Road) facility existing trail Erie#1 Proposed off-street New culvert proposed. Temporary Closure facility Erie#2 Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Proposed trail follows Union Pacific Proposed off-street commuter rail alignment but railroad facility proposed outside of BNSF Direct right-of-way; proposed trail may need realignment. Proposed off-street Proposed bridge over Stanley Dacono#1 facility Ditch could accommodate Direct—Beneficial future bike/ped Proposed bridge could Stanley Ditch Proposed trail accommodate future bike/ped Direct—Beneficial (intersects with Dacono#1) Leon a Wurl Proposed on-street Proposed access road to park Parkway (Saint facility and ride would cross Indirect—Adverse Vrain Legacy Trail) proposed trail Proposed off-street Trail terminates at commuter Dacono#2 facility rail alignment, proposed trail Temporary Closure may need slight realignment Little Dry Creek Proposed off-street Proposed bridge could 4111 facility accommodate future bike/ped Direct—Beneficial 25 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 10 Component A-Tl: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Bull Ditch Proposed off-street Proposed bridge could Direct—Beneficial facility accommodate future bike/ped Proposed on-street One additional railroad track 168`h Avenue Direct facility at existing crossing Big Dry Creek Proposed off-street Existing bridge could Indirect—Beneficial Ditch facility accommodate future bike/ped SH 7 Proposed on-street To the south of rail line No Impact facility German Ditch Proposed off-street Outside of Impact Area No Impact facility A proposed trail along the Little Thompson River may require temporary closure during construction if the trail exists when construction occurs, but would not have permanent adverse impacts. Fort Collins recently constructed a bike lane extending from along Mason Street from the Fossil Creek Trail north to Cherry Street. Construction of the South Transit Center as part of Package A station would include a pedestrian overpass to avoid conflicts with transit and trail users. The trail would be relocated directly east of the east platform to avoid impacts; the pedestrian bridge would span the trail and connect the platforms with the parking/bus facility. • A future trail is planned north of Prospect Avenue as part of the Mason Transportation Corridor. The commuter rail line proposed as part of Package A would impact approximately 3,000 feet of the trail, as it's currently planned. If Package A is identified as the Preferred Alternative, CDOT would work with the City of Fort Collins to avoid and minimize impacts. The railroad alignment between Little Thompson and Heron Lakes is shown on mapping received from the City of Berthoud as running along the BNSF corridor. However, since the city plans for this proposed trail to be constructed as part of future development in the area, it would be located parallel to but outside of the BNSF right-of-way. Impacts to this trail would depend on its future location. The three feeder bus routes from 1) Greeley to Windsor to Fort Collins, 2) Greeley to Loveland, and 3) Milliken to Johnstown to Berthoud would not noticeably affect bike/ped facilities, other than providing an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access commuter rail via the bus service. Other indirect effects are described below. • 26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 4111 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Component A-T2: Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro This component would involve providing a commuter rail line and facilities from Longmont along a new alignment parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing UP line to North Metro Denver (Longmont/North Metro Connection). Along this corridor, six existing bike/ped facilities exist. The improvements would not impact four of these, but would add an additional track at two existing trail crossings. A number of facilities are proposed along this corridor. The improvements would result in no impact to seven of these, but would add one or two additional tracks at five proposed trail crossings (see Table 11). The Town of Erie's Master Plan includes a future trail running along the Union Pacific railroad alignment north of Broomfield to Highway 52. Since this facility is proposed to be built as development occurs in the area, it is assumed this trail would run on private property outside of the existing railroad right-of-way where improvements would occur. Any impact to this trail would depend on its future location. A number of new bridges would be constructed as part of this component. Since these new bridges would increase the horizontal and vertical clearances associated with these waterway crossings, they would provide added room for any future bike/ped facility. The proposed feeder bus service would not directly affect bike/ped facilities, but would provide an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access • commuter rail via the bus service. These features could add to noise levels experienced by bicyclists and pedestrians. Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts One additional railroad Coffman Street Proposed on-street facility track at existing Direct crossing 2n°Avenue Proposed on-street facility No impact Proposed trail follows commuter rail 1St Avenue Proposed on-street facility alignment; proposed Direct trail will need to be realigned One additional railroad Martin Street Trail Proposed on-street facility crossing, one Direct additional track at existing crossing Sugar Mill Road Proposed on-street facility No impact County Line Road Proposed on-street facility Additional crossing (2 Direct tracks) • 27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed bridge could Colorado Front Range accommodate future g Proposed trail bike/ped; construction Temporary closure Trail (St. Vrain Trail) Direct—Beneficial may require temporary closure of trail Proposed bridge could accommodate future Temporary closure Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street facility bike/ped; construction Direct—Beneficial may require temporary closure of trail Cottonwood Extension Proposed off-street facility Additional crossing (2 Direct Ditchtracks) Community Ditch Proposed off-street facility No Impact SH 52 (Mineral Road) Proposed on-street facility Commuter rail would No Impact span existing trail Erie#1 Proposed off-street facility New culvert proposed. Indirect Erie#2 Proposed off-street facility No Impact • Proposed trail follows commuter rail Union Pacific railroad Proposed off-street facility alignment; proposed Direct trail will need to be realigned Proposed bridge over Dacono#1 Proposed off-street facility Stanley Ditch could Indirect—Potentially accommodate future Beneficial bike/ped Proposed bridge could Stanley Ditch Proposed trail accommodate future Direct—Beneficial bike/ped (intersects with Dacono#1) Leon a Wurl Parkway Proposed access road (Saint Vrain Legacy Proposed on-street facility to park and would Indirect—Adverse Trail) cross proposed trail Trail terminates at commuter rail Dacono#2 Proposed off-street facility alignment, proposed Temporary Closure trail may need slight realignment Proposed bridge could Little Dry Creek Proposed off-street facility accommodate future Direct—Beneficial bike/ped • 28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information, cooperation. transportation. Table 11 Component A-T2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed bridge could Bull Ditch Proposed off-street facility accommodate future Direct—Beneficial bike/ped One additional railroad 168th Avenue Proposed on-street facility track at existing Direct crossing Existing bridge could Big Dry Creek Ditch Proposed off-street facility accommodate future Direct—Beneficial bike/ped SH 7 Proposed on-street facility No Impact German Ditch Proposed off-street facility No Impact Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA Component A-T3 would provide commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and Denver Union Station, while Component A-T4 would provide commuter bus service along E-470 between US 85 and Denver International Airport. As with Component A-T2, neither • Components A-T3 nor A-T4 would directly affect bike/ped facilities, but would provide an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians. Package A: General Indirect Effects As discussed in the Land Use Technical Memorandum, commuter rail proposed in Package A would facilitate a shift in growth toward urban centers within the study area, particularly along the BNSF rail line. Increasing development densities in these urban areas would help facilitate bike/ped travel since denser development is more conducive to these transportation modes. It would also focus investment in future bike/ped facilities within these areas. Commuter rail would increase noise levels for users of nearby bike/ped facilities. Other transportation improvements, including the 1-25 widening, could increase noise levels along some bike/ped facilities. Also, as previously discussed, commuter rail would increase delays for users of facilities that cross the BNSF line at-grade. Overall, Package A is expected to improve regional air quality over the No-Action Alternative, resulting in corresponding benefits to bicyclists and pedestrians. However, transportation improvements associated with Package A (e.g., 1-25 widening, new stations, park and rides)would move vehicles closer to bike/ped facilities in some areas. Since mobile source air pollutants are more concentrated near the edge of roadways and dissipate further from the roadway, these improvements could result in localized adverse effects. • 29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Construction activities would result in temporary nuisance impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians, including construction noise and dust. As described above, some bike/ped facilities would require closure during construction. Package B Package B consists of four highway components and three transit components (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS. Table 12 and Table 13 present the consequences of each Package B component to the bike/ped facilities identified under Existing Conditions. The following sections summarize these impacts. Impacts for Component B-H1 (Safety Improvements) would be the same as those described for Package A: Component A-H1. Similarly, Component B-H2 (Tolled Express Lanes) and Component B-H3 (Tolled Express Lanes) would have the same impacts as Components A-H2 and A-H3, respectively. As discussed below, impacts would differ between Components B-H4 and A-H4 (see Table 12). Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 This component would add one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36. It is not expected to impact six of the existing bike/ped facilities in this area. Three of the facilities likely would experience temporary construction impacts, including possible trail closure. Impacts to proposed trails would not be anticipated. • Table 12 Component B-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Big Dry Creek Underpass Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure lengthened 128`"Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to be No Impact replaced 120th Transit Station Underpass Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure lengthened Community Center On-street facility Existing underpass to remain No Impact Drive Farmers Highline Off-street facility Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Canal Trail lengthened Kennedy Street On-street facility Existing overpass to be Temporary Closure replaced Lincoln Street Trail Outside of Impact Area No Impact (Northglenn Drive) Proposed bridge over I-25 104th Avenue On-street facility would include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial bike lanes Thornton Parkway On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact Coronado Parkway New pedestrian overpass, Trail Off-street facility improved pedestrian Direct—Beneficial circulation • 30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 12 Component B-H4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Impacts Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed bridge over 1-25 88th Avenue On-street facility would include sidewalk and Direct—Beneficial bike lanes; improved pedestrian circulation Clear Creek Trail Existing off-street Possible trail closure during Temporary Closure facility construction of BMPs Westminster#1 Proposed trail Trail is to the west of 1-25 No Impact Westminster#2 Proposed off-street Trail is to the west of 1-25 No Impact facility Westminster#3 Proposed trail Trail connection to Big Dry No Impact Creek Thornton#2 Proposed trail Existing underpass to remain No Impact (connection to Big Dry Creek) 120'h Avenue Proposed on-street Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure facility lengthened Tuck Lateral Proposed off-street Trail is to the west of 1-25 No Impact facility Civic Center Park Proposed off-street Trail is to the east of 1-25 No Impact facility • it is assumed that any proposed trail that would cross 1-25 at an existing culvert location would use that culvert,the widening of that culvert,or proposed culvert as an I-25 underpass. Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver The proposed BRT service mostly would occur within existing right-of-way and therefore would not directly impact bike/ped facilities. However, proposed queue jumps along US 34 (see Chapter 2 of the DEIS) would require acquisition of some new right-of-way within Greeley. Table 13 shows potential impacts to facilities near this proposed right-of-way. The improvements would require realigning roughly seven existing facilities. These facilities would be affected by construction-related noise, dust, detours, and temporary closures. Components B-T2: BRT: Fort Collins/Greeley to DIA Components B-T2 would not directly affect bike/ped facilities. • 31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 13 Impacts from Queue Jumps: US 34 Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts 10th Street(Hwy34) Existing and proposed Realignment of trail required at Direct on street facility queue jump locations 71st Avenue Existing on street facility Realignment of trail required at Direct queue jump location Hunters Cove West Existing and proposed Outside of Impact Area No Impact off street facility 63rd Avenue Existing bike lane/bike Outside of Impact Area No Impact route 59th Avenue Existing and proposed Realignment of trail required at Direct on street facility queue jump location 54th Avenue Proposed on street Outside of Impact Area No Impact facility 47th Avenue Existing on street facility Realignment of trail required at Direct queue jump location 43rd Avenue Existing and proposed Realignment of trail required at Direct on street facility queue jump locations 35th Avenue Existing on street facility Realignment of trail required at Direct queue jump location 28th Avenue Existing on street facility Realignment of trail required at Direct queue jump location • Package B: General Indirect Effects As discussed in the Land Use Technical Memorandum, the introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor would represent a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and would not spur the denser development along the BNSF line envisioned under Package A. Consequently, the benefits to bike/ped travel associated with denser development, discussed for Package A, Indirect Effects, would not be realized. Since growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 corridor, construction of future bike/ped facilities would be concentrated along this corridor. Localities would continue to look to developers to provide many of these facilities as part of their development plans. Similar to Package A, proposed improvements under Package B would improve regional air quality and therefore generally benefit bicyclists and pedestrians. However, as with Package A, moving vehicles closer to bike/ped facilities in some areas could create localized adverse effects. Package B improvements would increase noise levels for users of nearby bike/ped facilities. For example, since mobile source air pollutants are more concentrated near the edge of roadways and dissipate further from the roadway, these improvements could result in localized adverse effects. Construction activities would result in temporary nuisance impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians, including construction noise and dust. As described above, some bike/ped facilities would require closure during construction. • 32 Final EIS NORTH I-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information_ cooperation. transportation. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Package A and B in the DEIS (see Chapter 2 of the FEIS). Table 14 presents the consequences of the Preferred Alternative to the bike/ped facilities identified under Existing Conditions. The following sections summarize these impacts. Preferred Alternative Safety and General Purpose Improvements Safety improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would directly and indirectly impact bike/ped facilities (see Table 14). Overall, these improvements would facilitate future bike/ped travel. Mountain Vista Drive and Vine Drive are to be reconstructed at the 1-25 crossings where bike/ped facilities are planned. The reconstructed roadways would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders to accommodate bicycle travel. Two 1-25 frontage roads would require realignment where bike/ped facilities are planned. The reconstructed frontage roads would include 10-foot shoulders to accommodate bicycle use. One general purpose lane and one buffer-separated toll expressed lane would be added to northbound and southbound 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 66. Several existing bike/ped facilities would experience temporary impacts during construction, including possible temporary closure (see Table 14). The highway widening would require realigning several frontage roads along 1-25. The new frontage roads would include 10-foot shoulders. A number of new structures are proposed over 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 66. These new • highway bridges would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders. A modified bridge over 1-25 at Harmony Road would include sidewalks and 10-foot shoulders which would connect to and extend the existing bike/ped facility that exists to the west of 1-25. In close proximity to proposed bike/ped facilities, four underpasses that run adjacent to water ways are being replaced. The underpasses and several new bridges over waterways would provide adequate area underneath to accommodate planned future trails. One buffer-separated toll expressed lane would be added to northbound and southbound 1-25 between SH 66 and E-470. As shown in Table 14 these improvements would not adversely affect existing bike/ped facilities. Six proposed facilities are located along frontage roads that would need to be realigned; the reconstructed frontage roads would include 10-foot shoulders. Eleven reconstructed roads under and over 1-25 would accommodate future bike/ped use. One buffer-separated toll expressed lane would be added to northbound and southbound 1-25 between E-470 and US 36. Overall, these improvements would facilitate future bike/ped travel. (See Table 14) It is not expected to impact five of the existing bike/ped facilities in this area. Three of the facilities likely would experience temporary construction impacts, including possible trail closure. Two of the trails would require some realignment due to 1-25 widening. • 33 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 14 I-25 Highway Improvements Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed trail would go under Box Elder Creek Proposed off-street 1-25. Existing culvert is being No Impact facility lengthened due to highway widening. Douglas Road Proposed on-street Trail would go under 1-25 No impact facility Richards Lake Proposed bridge would Road On-street facility include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial shoulders. Improvements would require Frontage Road some realignment of (Richards Lake Proposed on-street connection where facility is Direct—Beneficial Road to Mountain facility proposed. Proposed frontage Vista Drive) road would include 10-foot shoulders. Mountain Vista Proposed on-street Proposed bridge would Drive facility include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial shoulders. Proposed bike lane Proposed bridge would Vine Drive improvements include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial • shoulders. Improvements would require Frontage Road realignment of connection (Mountain Vista Proposed on-street where facility is proposed Direct—Beneficial Drive to Mulberry facility south of Vine Drive. Proposed St.) frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders Interior roads proposed to Proposed on-street improve circulation in the Weicker Drive facility northwest quadrant of Direct—Beneficial interchange. Roads would include 10-foot shoulders. Interchange improvements Mulberry Street Proposed bike lane would improve bike/ped (SH 14) improvements circulation since proposed Direct—Beneficial trail would be grade- separated over SH 14 Frontage Road Realignment of proposed (Mulberry Street Proposed bike lane bike/ped facility. Proposed Direct—Beneficial to Prospect improvements frontage road would include Street) 10-foot shoulders Realignment of proposed Southeast Proposed on-street bike/ped facility. Proposed Direct—Beneficial Frontage Road facility frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders. • 34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Table 14 I-25 Highway Improvements Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Improvements would require some realignment of Timnath Bike Proposed on-street connection where facility is Direct—Beneficial Route facility proposed. Proposed frontage road would include 10-foot shoulders. Connection would need realignment due to frontage Baker Lake Trail Proposed off-street road extension. No crossing No Impact facility of 1-25 currently. Highway widening would increase length of any future structure Proposed bike lane Proposed bridge over 1-25 Prospect Road improvements would include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial shoulders. Crossing distance of Harmony Road.would Poudre River Proposed trail increase due to roadway Direct Trail improvements improvements. Express Bus station conflicts with proposed trail alignment. Harmony Road Proposed bridge over 1-25 (SH 68) Bike lane would include sidewalks and Temporary—Closure shoulders. Proposed frontage road south Direct—Potentially Box Elder Ditch Proposed trail of LCR 40 would cross Adverse proposed trail. Frontage Road Proposed bike lane (36 Road to 38 improvements Outside of Impact area. No Impact Road) Proposed on-street Proposed bridge over 1-25 36 Road improvements would include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial shoulders. Timnath#1 Proposed off-street Proposed trail terminates at I- No Impact facility 25. Colorado Front Proposed trail Trail would require Range Trail improvement realignment due to frontage Direct road improvements. Proposed on-street SH 392 West(32 improvement(to be No existing connection across No Impact Road) built as part of No 1-25. Action Alternative) Reconstruction of frontage 30 Road Bike lane road would require temporary Temporary—Closure closure of facility. • 35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information cooperation. transportation. Table 14 I-25 Highway Improvements Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Crossroads Boulevard. Crossroads (26 currently goes under 1-25 Road) Lane improvement there is potential that a road Temporary—Closure closure may be needed to accommodate improvements. Clydesdale On-street facility Outside of Impact area. No impact Realignment of proposed Loveland#1 Proposed off-street facility due to highway Direct facility widening and reconfiguration of interchange (1-25&US 34) Proposed trail would go under Loveland and Proposed underpass 1-25. Existing culvert is being No Impact Greeley Canal and trail lengthened due to highway widening. 1-25 widening would impact McWhinney small portion of existing Boulevard On-street facility bike/ped facility. Closure may Temporary—Closure be required during construction. US 34 Bike lane May require realignment due Direct to intersection improvements. Proposed lane 20E Prop Proposed bridge over 1-25 • ove d would include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial impshoulders. Big Thompson Proposed path Proposed trail would go under River Trail improvement 1-25. Underpass is being No Impact replaced. Culvert is being replaced. Hillsborough Off-street facility Temporary impacts to Temporary—Closure Ditch Trail existing facility during construction. Proposed bridge over 1-25 402/18 Proposed lane would include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial— improvements shoulders. Carpool lot could Adverse increase traffic. Ditch/Creek Proposed trail Proposed trail would go under (South of 402/18) improvement 1-25. Underpass is being No Impact replaced. Realignment of connection Proposed on-street where facility is proposed. Johnstown#1 facility Proposed frontage road Direct—Beneficial would include 10-foot shoulders Proposed on-street Improvements to SH 60 46 Road improvement under 1-25 would include Direct—Beneficial sidewalks and shoulders. • 36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 14 I-25 Highway Improvements Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Proposed on street Improvements to SH56 under SH 56 improvement 1-25 would include 10-foot Direct—Beneficial shoulders and sidewalk. Little Thompson Proposed trail Proposed trail would go under River improvement 1-25. Underpass is being No Impact replaced. SH 66 Proposed on street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility Colorado Front Proposed trail Range Trail improvement Existing underpass to remain No Impact (Saint Vrain Trail) Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off-street Outside of Impact Area No Impact facility Lower Boulder Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain No impact Ditch Trail (West) facility Lower Boulder Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain No Impact Ditch Trail (East) facility Proposed trail Outside of impact area. Trail CR 15 improvement connection to Lower Boulder No Impact Ditch Improved facility would • SH 52 On-street facility include new sidewalks and Direct Beneficial shoulders. Erie#2 Proposed trail Outside of Impact Area No Impact Dacono#2 Proposed off-street Proposed trail terminates at No Impact facility existing culvert Union Pacific Proposed off-street No existing crossing of 1-25. No Impact railroad alignment facility Stanley Ditch Proposed off-street Trail is proposed under 1-25. No Impact Trail facility Existing culvert will remain. Dacono#3 Proposed off-street Outside impact area. No Impact facility Broomfield Trail Proposed off-street Existing culvert to remain No Impact facility Proposed off-street Proposed trail would go under Regional Trail 5 facility 1-25. At existing culvert. No Impact Culvert is being extended. Leon Wurl Proposed on-street Proposed connection would No Impact Parkway facility go over 1-25. Proposed on street Improvements to SH 7 would SH 7 facility include sidewalks and Direct—Beneficial shoulders. Bull Ditch Trail Proposed off-street Trail is proposed under 1-25. No Impact facility Existing culvert will remain. 160th Avenue Proposed on street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility 37 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 14 I-25 Highway Improvements Name Type of Facility Comments I Impacts Proposed off-street May require realignment due Thornton #1 facility to improvements to frontage Direct road. E-470 Proposed off-street Connection is located under I- No Impact facility 25. Westminster#1 Proposed trail Trail terminates prior to No Impact crossing 1-25. Westminster#2 Proposed off-street Trail terminates prior to No Impact facility crossing 1-25. Proposed off-street Trail would go under 1-25. Big Dry Creek facility Existing underpass is being No Impact replaced. Westminster#3 Proposed trail Outside of impact area. No Impact Connection to Big Dry Creek. Thornton#2 Proposed trail Will share a crossing at No Impact underpass that is being replaced. 128"'Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact 120th Avenue Proposed on-street Existing overpass to remain No Impact facility 120m Transit Underpass Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Station lengthened • Community On-street facility Existing underpass to remain. No Impact Center Drive Farmers Highline Off-street facility Existing underpass to be Temporary Closure Canal Trail lengthened Kennedy Street On-street facility Existing overpass is being Temporary Closure replaced. Lincoln Street Will require minor changes in (Northglenn On-street facility alignment due to 1-25 Direct Drive) widening. 104th Avenue On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact Proposed off-street Will require some changes in Tuck Lateral facility alignment due to 1-25 Direct widening. Civic Center Park Proposed off-street Outside of Impact area No Impact facility Thornton On-street facility Existing overpass to remain No Impact Parkway New pedestrian overpass, Coronado improved pedestrian Parkway Trail Off-street facility circulation. Trail will require Direct—Beneficial some realignment due to 1-25 Widening. Proposed bridge over 1-25 88th Avenue On-street facilit would include sidewalks and y bike lanes; improved Direct—Beneficial pedestrian circulation. 111 Clear Creek Trail Off-street facility Existing underpass to remain No Impact 38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 E15 Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information cooperation. t'ansportation. Express Bus Service: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver The proposed express bus service mostly would occur within existing right-of-way and therefore would not directly impact bike/ped facilities. At stations, a proposed pedestrian overpass would connect land uses and trail systems on the east and west sides of 1-25. The proposed overpasses would provide a safe pedestrian connection across 1-25. However, proposed queue jumps along US 34 (see Chapter 2 of the FEIS) would require acquisition of some new right-of-way within Greeley. Table 15 shows potential impacts to facilities near this proposed right-of-way. The improvements would require realigning roughly seven existing facilities. These facilities would be affected by construction-related noise, dust, detours, and temporary closures. Table 15 Impacts from Queue Jumps: US 34 Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Existing and Realignment of trail required 10th Street(Hwy34) proposed on at queue jump locations Direct street facility 71st Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location Existing and Hunters Cove West proposed off Outside of Impact Area No Impact • street facility 63rd Avenue Existing bike Outside of Impact Area No Impact lane/bike route Existing and Realignment of trail required 59th Avenue proposed on at queue jump location Direct street facility 54th Avenue Proposed on Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility 47th Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location Existing and Realignment of trail required 43rd Avenue proposed on Direct street facility at queue jump locations 35th Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location 28th Avenue Existing on street Realignment of trail required Direct facility at queue jump location Commuter Rail: Fort Collins to North Metro This component would involve providing a commuter rail line and facilities along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) alignment from Fort Collins to Longmont and a new alignment parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line to North Metro Denver(Longmont/North Metro Connection) Commuter Rail is not expected to impact 33 of the 47 existing bike/ped facilities. Approximately 18 existing facilities currently cross the BNSF railroad tracks. The Preferred Alternative would add an • additional track and/or maintenance road that these facilities would need to cross. Bike/ped 39 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Technical • Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information cooperation transportation. traffic at these at-grade crossings currently must wait for freight trails using the BNSF line to pass. The proposed commuter trains would result in similar delays to bike/ped travel, although these trains generally would be shorter than the freight trains. (see Table 16). A new track between Longmont and the North Metro Connection would cross three existing trails and seven proposed trails (see Table 16). The Town of Erie's Master Plan includes a future trail running along the UPRR alignment north of Broomfield to SH 52. Since this facility is proposed to be built as development occurs in the area, it is assumed this trail would run on private property outside of the existing railroad right-of-way where improvements would occur. Any impact to this trail would depend on its future location. At two of the rail stations, a pedestrian overpass would provide a safe pedestrian connection over the rail. At rail stations where there is no pedestrian pass, pedestrians would be directed to the nearest local road. At-grade ped/bike facilities would be temporarily impacted during construction. A number of new bridges are proposed to be constructed between Longmont and the North Metro Connection. Since these new bridges would increase the horizontal and vertical clearances associated with these waterway crossings, they would provide added room for any future bike/ped facility. The railroad alignment between The Little Thompson River and Heron Lakes is shown on mapping received from the City of Berthoud as running along the BNSF corridor in a segment that is proposed to have passing track. Since the city plans for this proposed trail to be constructed as part of future development in the area, it would be located parallel to • but outside of the BNSF right-of-way. Impacts to this trail would depend on its future location. The five feeder bus routes from 1) SH 257 to Windsor, 2)Johnstown to SH 257, 3) Berthoud to SH 56 and 1-25 and 4) Longmont to Fort Lupton and 5) Erie to SH 7 would not noticeably affect bike/ped facilities, other than providing an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians to access commuter rail and express bus via the bus service. These features could add to noise levels experienced by bicyclists and pedestrians. Table 16 Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Howes Street Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact LaPorte Avenue Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Commuter rail station. Mason Street Mason Street between Maple Street and LaPorte (Cherry Street to Bike lane Avenue would be converted into a Direct—Beneficial Laurel Street) bus only road with dedicated bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of Mason Street. Mountain Avenue Proposed on- Outside of Impact area. No impact street facility Olive Street Bike route Outside of impact area. No Impact • 40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Table 16 Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Mason Street Existing/propose (Laurel Street to d off-street multi- Proposed commuter rail stations No Impact Fossil Creek use path would not impact trails. Drive) East Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact West Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact CSU Campus Underpass Existing underpass to remain No Impact Pitkin Street Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Lake Street Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Spring Creek Trail Underpass and Outside of Impact Area. No Impact trail Drake Road Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact West Harvard Bike route Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Street Swallow Road Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact University Avenue Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Manhattan Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Horsetooth Road Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Mason Street (Horsetooth Road Bike lane Commuter rail station. Direct to Harmony Road) IIIBoardwalk Drive Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact Troutman Parkway Bike route Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Harmony Road Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Proposed on- One additional crossing for Fossil Creek Drive and off-street Direct maintenance road. facility Fossil Creek Trail Off-street facility Outside of Impact Area No Impact Midway Drive to Proposed multi- Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Skyway Drive use path Trilby Road Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Shields Street (parallel to Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact railroad) Railroad alignment (57Th Street and Planned path Outside of Impact Area No Impact northward) 57Th Street Planned trail Outside of Impact Area. No Impact 37`h Street Bike lane One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing 29" Street Bike lane Commuter rail station; one additional Direct railroad track at existing crossing. Lake Drive (parallel to Bike route Outside of Impact Area No Impact railroad) • 41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information cooperation. transportation. Table 16 Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Garfield Avenue One additional railroad track at (parallel to Bike route existing crossing. Direct railroad) US 34 Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact 7th Street Proposed bike Outside of Impact Area. No Impact route US 287 Bike route Outside of Impact Area No Impact 1st Street Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Big Thompson Underpass and Outside Impact Area. No Impact River trail Roosevelt Avenue Bike lane Outside of Impact Area No Impact 14"'Southwest Bike lane Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Street Proposed bike One additional railroad crossing, one Heron Lakes Trail trail additional crossing for maintenance Direct road. Berthoud Proposed bike One additional railroad crossing, one Reservoir trail additional crossing for maintenance Direct road. 49`h Street(west of Proposed major Outside of Impact Area. No Impact railroad) bike trail Railroad alignment Proposed trail follows commuter rail • (Little Thompson Proposed major alignment; proposed trail may need to Direct to Heron Lakes) bike trail be realigned Proposed major One additional railroad crossing, one CR E-10 bike trail additional crossing for maintenance Direct road. US 287 Bypass Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility Bunyan Avenue Proposed major One additional railroad track at Direct bike trail existing crossing Mountain Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Welch Avenue On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Neilson Trail Proposed major One additional crossing for Direct bike trail maintenance road. First Street(at Proposed major r One additional railroad crossing, one railroad) bike trail additional crossing for maintenance Direct road. Little Thompson Proposed major Existing underpass will remain. No Impact River bike trail Vermillion Road Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility Park Ridge Proposed on- One additional crossing for Avenue (proposed p Direct road extension) street facility maintenance road. • 42 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation transportation. Table 16 Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts SH 66 Proposed on Out of Impact Area. No Impact street facility Railroad alignment Proposed off- Proposed trail follows commuter rail (21st Avenue to SH street facility alignment; proposed trail will need to Direct 66) be realigned 21s Avenue On-street facility Outside of Impact Area. No Impact One additional railroad crossing,one Lanyon Park Trail Proposed off- additional crossing for maintenance Direct street facility road, crossing design will need to accommodate for retaining walls. 17th Avenue Proposed on- One additional railroad track at Direct street facility existing crossing Mountain View On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct Avenue existing crossing 11th Avenue Proposed on Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility 9'n Avenue Proposed on- Two additional railroad tracks at Direct street facility existing crossing Longs Peak On-street facility Two additional railroad tracks at Direct Avenue existing crossing 4th Avenue On-street facility• Two additional railroad tracks at Direct existing crossing Collyer Street On-street facility Outside of Impact Area No Impact Main Street On-street facility One additional railroad track at Direct existing crossing Coffman Street Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility 2"d Avenue Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility 15'Avenue Proposed on Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility Martin Street Trail Proposed on- One additional railroad crossing,one Direct street facility additional track at existing crossing Alpine Street On-street facility Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Rogers Road On-street facility Commuter rail station. _ Direct. 119`"Street On-street facility Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Proposed on- New railroad crossing, crossing Sugar Mill Road street facility design will need to accommodate for Direct retaining walls. SH 119 On-street facility Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Ken Pratt Rail line will go over Ken Pratt Boulevard On-street facility Boulevard. A temporary closure may Temporary Closure be needed. County Line Road Proposed on- New railroad crossing. Direct street facility _ • 43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 16 Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metro) Name Type of Facility Comments Impacts Colorado Front Proposed rail line will be on a bridge Range Trail (St. Proposed trail at this location. No Impact Vrain Trail) Idaho Creek Trail Proposed off- Two New Railroad Crossings. Direct street facility Cottonwood Proposed off- Outside of Impact Area. No impact Extension Ditch street facility Community Ditch Proposed off- Outside of Impact area No Impact street facility SH 52(Mineral Proposed on- Railroad will be located on a bridge in No Impact Road) street facility this area. Erie#1 Proposed off- Two new railroad crossings at two Direct street facility locations. Erie#2 Proposed off- Outside of Impact Area No Impact street facility Proposed trail follows commuter rail Union Pacific Proposed off- alignment but proposed outside of Direct railroad street facility BNSF right-of-way; proposed trail may need realignment. Dacono#1 Proposed off- Outside of Impact Area. No impact street facility • Stanley Ditch Proposed trail One new railroad crossing. Direct Leon a Wurl Proposed on- Parkway (Saint street facility Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Vrain Legacy Trail) Dacono#2 Proposed off- Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility Little Dry Creek Proposed off- One new railroad crossing. Direct street facility Bull Ditch Proposed off Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility 168`h Avenue Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility Big Dry Creek Proposed off- Outside of Impact Area. No Impact Ditch street facility SH 7 Proposed on- Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility German Ditch Proposed off- Outside of Impact Area. No Impact street facility • 44 Final EIS NORTH I-25 • August 2011 E15 Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information cooperation. transportation. US 85 Commuter Bus The Preferred Alternative would provide commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and Denver Union Station. Commuter bus service would not directly effect bike/ped facilities along the US 85 corridor, but would provide an incentive and transportation option for bicyclists and pedestrians. Preferred Alternative: General Indirect Effects As discussed in the Land Use Technical Memorandum, commuter rail would facilitate a shift in growth toward urban centers within the study area, particularly along the BNSF rail line. Increasing development densities in these urban areas would help facilitate bike/ped travel since denser development is more conducive to these transportation modes. It would also focus investment in future bike/ped facilities within these areas. Commuter rail would increase noise levels for users of nearby bike/ped facilities. The new passing track and maintenance road create additional crossings for the pedestrian and bicyclist. These additional crossings require the pedestrian and bicyclist to slow down and potentially stop for the freight rail or commuter rail trains. By eliminating the double track that was proposed in Package A and providing passing track and maintenance road at limited locations, the delays to ped/bike facilities would be less in the Preferred Alternative than Package A. The introduction of express bus along the 1-25 corridor would represent a more modest shift • in growth than commuter rail. Since growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 corridor, construction of future bike/ped facilities would be concentrated along this corridor. Localities would continue to look to developers to provide many of these facilities as part of their development plans. Express bus would improve connectivity across 1-25 by providing a pedestrian overpass that connects the east and west side of 1-25 at five of the proposed stations. Express bus would improve regional air quality and therefore generally benefit bicyclists and pedestrians. However, moving vehicles closer to bike/ped facilities in some areas could create localized adverse effects. Express bus improvements would increase noise levels for users of nearby bike/ped facilities. Mobile source air pollutants would be more concentrated near the edge of roadways and dissipate further from the roadway, these improvements could result in localized adverse effects. The Preferred Alternative impacts to ped/bike facilities are similar to those presented in Package B. Transportation improvements, including the 1-25 widening and crossings of 1-25 could increase noise levels along some bike/ped facilities and would require the relocation of some trails. Construction activities would result in temporary nuisance impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians, including construction noise and dust. As described above, some bike/ped facilities would require closure during construction. Overall, the Preferred Alternative is expected to improve regional air quality over the No- Action Alternative, Package A and Package B resulting in corresponding benefits to bicyclists and pedestrians. However, transportation improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would move vehicles closer to bike/ped facilities in some areas. Since mobile source air pollutants are more concentrated near the edge of roadways and dissipate further from the roadway, these improvements could result in localized adverse • effects. 45 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information, cooperation. transportation. MITIGATION CDOT and FHWA prioritized accommodating bike/ped movement early in the project development process. Consequently, new frontage roads along 1-25 and grade-separated highways crossing 1-25 will include features to accommodate bike/ped travel. Also, proposed drainage structures will provide opportunities for bike/ped crossings under 1-25 and other roadways. Despite some adverse effects discussed above, the Preferred Alternative will provide net benefits to existing and proposed bike/ped travel. Therefore, no specific mitigation measures are identified. Measures to minimize construction impacts are discussed in Section 3.23 Construction of the Final EIS. REFERENCES Adams County Open Space Plan Trail map. Bicycling Metro Denver Route map (by the Denver Bicycle Touring Club. Boulder County Comprehensive P/an—County trails map and County On-Street Bikeways Plan Brighton Comprehensive Plan, 2003 • CDOT Bicycle Pedestrian Program, 2001. City and County of Broomfield Open Space Plan. City of Boulder, Transportation Information System (website—GIS map). City of Brighton Open Space and Trails Plan, 2006. City of Louisville, Department of Land Management, Open Space Program Callahan property trail improvement. City of Loveland, Parks and Recreation Trails location Map. City of Northglenn Greenway/trail system map, January 2000. City of Northglenn Parks and Trails Master Plan, 2005. City of Thornton Parks and Open Space Master Plan, 2003. City of Thornton Proposed Community and Regional Trail Network map. City of Thornton Parks and Open Space and trails map, winter 2004. City of Westminster Trails Master Plan map, June 2001. • 46 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 • August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation, transportation. Colorado Front Range Trail Corridor Plan, April 2002. Colorado Front Range Trail Project, CO State Parks, 2003. Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2003. Denver Metro Trails Guide, GOCO, 2000. Denver Parks and Recreation Game Plan, 2003. Firestone Draft Master Plan, 2006. Fort Collins Bicycle Map (Smart tips) March 2003. Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan, 2004. Greeley Parks and Trails Master Plan, Jan 2001. 1-25 Corridor Plan. Johnstown Milliken Parks, Trails, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, June 2003. • Lafayette Comprehensive Plan, 2003. Larimer County Open Lands Plan. Larimer County Transportation Plan (September 2000). Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan (Bikeways Map). Longmont Open Space and Trails Master Plan, 2002. Longmont Multimodal Transportation Plan (Bike Vision Map) property trail improvement. Loveland Bikeways and Recreational trail map (2003-2004) Master Plan. Mason Trail Map, City of Fort Collins. Poudre River Trail Corridor Master Plan, 1995. South Platte River—Greenway Trail map. Denver Department of Parks and Recreation. St. Vrain Valley Open Lands and Trails Plan. St. Vrain Trail Master Plan, 2004. Timnath Comprehensive Plan, 2005. • Timnath Future Land Use Plan, 2005. 47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities information. cooperation. transportation. Timnath Trails Plan, 2005. Town of Berthoud Master Land Use Plan, 2001. Town of Berthoud, Parks and major bike trails map, Feb 2001. Town of Erie Parks and Open Space Master Plan, 2002. Town of Frederick Parks and Open Space Master Plan, 2006. Town of Frederick—Potential Trails and Open Space map, April 2004. Town of Mead, 2004 Comprehensive Plan, 2004. Town of Mead, Proposed sidewalk/trail system, Dec 2000. Upper Front Range 2030—Regional Transportation Plan Draft. US 36 Regional bicycle map. Weld County Comprehensive Plan (1999)—Structural Land Use Plan Map. Westminster Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2004-2009. • Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2006. • 48 Hello